# B-17, B-24, or Lancaster



## elmilitaro (Mar 8, 2006)

Which is these was the best bomber during WW2, in your opinion.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 8, 2006)

B24 of course!


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 8, 2006)

Lancaster...


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 8, 2006)

Oh Jesus, we've had this argument for 2 years now...


----------



## Wildcat (Mar 8, 2006)

LOL, here we go again...!


----------



## Jabberwocky (Mar 9, 2006)

Don't forget the Halifax! 

The way I see it:

Unescorted Day Bomber: B-17 (better ceiling and defensive firepower than Lanc/Halifax, better survivability than B-24)

Escorted Day Bomber: Lancaster (better bombload, faster cruising speed than either B-17 or B-24)

Night Bomber: Lancaster

Maratime Patrol Bomber: Halifax III or PB4Y-2


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 9, 2006)

we've covered this subjest at great length and as much as i enjoy talking about it, i don't think others want to be subjected to it again 

also any un-escorted bomber during daylight will be shot down in large numbers and no one will tell you otherwise, the only notable exception is the mosquito..........

btw, the lancaster is the superior aircraft in almost every respect.........


----------



## MacArther (Mar 9, 2006)

**cough cough** exceptguns **cough cough**


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 9, 2006)

The facts were clear the B24 was tied with the Lanc for 2nd place (overall) and the B24 was clearly the superior of the two in the PTO/CBI.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 9, 2006)

> **cough cough** exceptguns **cough cough**



yeah 'cos they really stopped them getting shot down  besides i never denied the american bombers had more/better guns.........

and sys you proved nothing


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 9, 2006)

I more than proved my points.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 9, 2006)

which points exactily?


----------



## Erich (Mar 9, 2006)

you guys have heard of the word Perfectos being used by Mossie nf's for running across German nf's ........... yes ?


----------



## Henk (Mar 9, 2006)

The B-24 sug, the Lancaster is also not so good as the B-17. The B-17 were the best of the three.

Henk


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 9, 2006)

Henk, the B17 had an inferior range and bomb load compared with the other two.


----------



## Henk (Mar 9, 2006)

Maybe, but who had the best defence against fighters. I would rather fly in the B-17 than the other two. The bomb laod of the B-17 was not so bad.

Henk


----------



## evangilder (Mar 9, 2006)

Bombers were no match for fighters. The B-17 and the B-24 had about equal firepower.


----------



## Henk (Mar 9, 2006)

But wich one would you chose mate? You are right when you said that bombers are no match against fighters. The B-17 shot down the most fighter as far as I know and it were very successfull.

The US knew how to use the B-17, the Brits did not know how to use it and thus had to learn from the US.

Henk


----------



## Erich (Mar 9, 2006)

they were all dog meat unescorted, and at night the Lanc was about equal with the Halibag. B-17 had a higher altitiude perfomrance than the B-24, but so what the Luftwaffe Flak and Luftw. pilots didn't care


----------



## Henk (Mar 9, 2006)

Yep, wich one is your best bomber of the three?

Henk


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 9, 2006)

> The bomb laod of the B-17 was not so bad.



yes, it was, it wasn't unheard of for B-17s to hit berlin with 2,000lbs of bombs, normally no more than 6,000lbs, the lanc would go to berlin with 14,000lbs of bombs, and a much MUCH greater variety than the B-17, or B-24 for that matter.............



> The US knew how to use the B-17, the Brits did not know how to use it and thus had to learn from the US



no, we learnt early on in the war unescorted daylight raids don't work, so we bombed by night, being american however they thought they knew better and sent off their B-17s on unescorted daylight raids, as a concequence of the high losses they almost quit their bombing campaign! we didn't need the B-17 for bombing, we had the lanc and halibag, the americans taught us nothing about bombing, and i would like to point out the B-17 was only "successful" over Europe with fighter escort.............


----------



## Henk (Mar 9, 2006)

Every bomber over Europe were better with escort mate. Mate I am not form the US I am from South Africa. No, mate you did not understand when I said the UK did not know how to use the B-17 early in the war. The UK did not use bomber formations correctly when it came to the B-17 and thus lost a lot of them. Then the Us used the B-17 on a bombing raid wiht only a few bombers and usxed a great bomber formation and lost on bomber and then the UK started to use the fromations.

The UK started to bomb after they asked the US if they would bomb during the day because they lost so many bombers, so the US actualy got the shitty job.

Well your bomb load can be great, but if your bomber is not well defended it is not a great bomber.

I can see what you meen and I just said wich one I think is the best and I see why you say the Lancaster is your best bomber.

Henk


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 9, 2006)

I think according to current military doctrine night is a weapon and its cheap and reliable,but when the Lanc was exposed to "daylight conditions" such as the raid on nuremberg on 30 mar 44 of 800 bombers 750 reached the target 97 were shot down and 12 were writeoffs it was a "daylight raid" with a bright full moon and low thin cloud below them as one pilot qouted " we were flying in a well lit arena with vapour trails clearly visable for miles where i rarely saw another a/c i could counted 12 on my port side alone" the Lanc was not at its best


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 10, 2006)

sorry henk i realise you're not american hence when refering to the americans i addressed them as "them" and not "you", i never meant to imply you are american.......



> The UK did not use bomber formations correctly when it came to the B-17 and thus lost a lot of them



Many were lost because they sucked, 90 sqn used the early models at the high altitudes they were supposed to work at, and even the oil that was supposed to stop the guns freezing froze! they were useless, hance why we didn't use them..........



> UK started to use the fromations



the UK never used the big american formations, we used a bomber stream by night and much more spread out formations by day.........



> they asked the US if they would bomb during the day because they lost so many bombers, so the US actualy got the sh*tty job



before the war both countries were working on the "the bomber will always get through" idea, we realised very early on that actually it's not true, bombers don't get through without loosing great numbers, hence why we switched to night bombers, the american's hadn't learnt that yet and still thought they'd be able to, so when they came into the war the RAF were bombing by night so the USAAF offered to bomb by day, and after some appauling losses they almost quit their whole campain............



> Well your bomb load can be great, but if your bomber is not well defended it is not a great bomber.



remember not every bomber has to get through, losses are always to be expected...........


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 10, 2006)

how different is the Halifax from the Lanc anyways? (aside from the nose area)


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 10, 2006)

Halifax --> http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/BARC/halifax.html
Lancaster --> http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/BARC/lancaster.html

See for yourself...


----------



## Twitch (Mar 10, 2006)

Opinion's are like a$$holes- everybody's got one and they all stink. Each plane contributed to destruction of the Reich in its own way. Enough said!


----------



## evangilder (Mar 10, 2006)

Well said, Twitch. I think this "which one is better" is kind of pointless. Everyone has their opinion, which they are welcome to have. We all have our certain biases toward one airplane versus another. The point is that all three were used to obtain the one outcome..victory. They all performed well for what their jobs were. 

Henk, I think you need to read up a bit more on the bombing campaign over Europe. Someo fthe info you have posted is pretty inaccurate. Nobody asked the Americans to bomb by day, the 8th AF chose to do it. Losses during daylight raids were atrocious and as Lanc pointed out, it damn near led to the end of daylight bombing in Europe. A good read about that is "The Wrong Stuff" by Truman Smith. As he puts it, it was all a big experiment. 

The fact of the matter is that it really didn't matter how much firepower you put on a bomber. It was slow and not nimble. The idea was that if enough guns were put in there, it would ward off the fighters. Well guess what? It didn't really work. Attack a B-17 or B-24 from the rear, blast out the tail gunner and you have free reign to bring it down. There are several videos posted here of that very scenario. Box formations help some, but you are still going to be screwed if you end up as "tail end Charlie". 

What worked best in the Pacific? Look at what Curt LeMay did with the bombing of Japan. He took most of the guns out of the B-29s and bombed from low altitude _at night_. 

Without fighter escort and/or complete control of the air, your bombing campaign will not be successful. History has proven that. Today, strike aircraft go in at night to remove the threats of AAA, missile and SAM sites and anything else they can find before the big boys come in. A lesson well learned and applied today.


----------



## Henk (Mar 10, 2006)

Twitch, but you also have a opinion or don't you mate?  My opinion does not stink, I can not smell it can or is my nose closed.  Just pulling your leg mate. I understand what you are trying to say. 

Yes, the thing still remain that the allies did bomb Germany so that did not have anything left except rubble. That is the sad thing of bombing but it was needed to get Germany onto it's knees. 

The thing is that UK were better at night bombing and the US could keep up their daylight raids because they had the mass production to keep it up. 

Henk


----------



## Erich (Mar 10, 2006)

hate to say this , but ............. right on the monies gents. Too many silly comparison threads started : Which type A a/c is better than another type A a/c. what a bunch of needless crock and all supposed proved by schematics and facts taken from books.

who gives a frickin care. the Allies won, the Japanese and Germans lost. Each pilot flying an individual a/c in combat thought that theirs was the best...........no matter bomber of fighter.

geez I sound like a demon from hell


----------



## Henk (Mar 10, 2006)

evangilder said:


> Well said, Twitch. I think this "which one is better" is kind of pointless. Everyone has their opinion, which they are welcome to have. We all have our certain biases toward one airplane versus another. The point is that all three were used to obtain the one outcome..victory. They all performed well for what their jobs were.
> 
> Henk, I think you need to read up a bit more on the bombing campaign over Europe. Someo fthe info you have posted is pretty inaccurate. Nobody asked the Americans to bomb by day, the 8th AF chose to do it. Losses during daylight raids were atrocious and as Lanc pointed out, it damn near led to the end of daylight bombing in Europe. A good read about that is "The Wrong Stuff" by Truman Smith. As he puts it, it was all a big experiment.
> 
> ...



Well mate I understand what you are saying and I have looked at documentary,s where they have looked into the bombing raids over Europe and found that the 8th Airforce did take over the role of day light raids after the UK said they can not sustain the the daylight rads and thus took over the role of day light raids. I must say I am sorry that I said that the UK asked the US to do the day light raids.

Yes, the US were excellent when it came to the raids over Japan and the B-29, but the B-29 were a flying fortress, but still without fighter escort all bombers were pretty unsafe in the sky.

The German pilots loved to take out the tail gunners and they did it quite a lot with the Lancasters in the night raids and during the day raids.

Well firstly I must say that if I were wrong I should say I were a ass in posting it. So please accept my apology, if I were wrong.

Henk


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 10, 2006)

henk there are a lot of documentarys and books each one has errors to some degree but you have to sort the wheat from the chaff and there is least 2 sides to each war documentary some fail to show the other guys point of view on what happened . you live about about as far south as you can in SA


----------



## Henk (Mar 10, 2006)

Well mate we do not get the great shit you do since 1994. Well I wish I could get more books. I try to get books that have everything in it, but they are not plentiful.

"you live about about as far south as you can in SA"

lol lol all most mate, Kaap Agullas is the most southern point of SA and Africa.

Henk


----------



## Jabberwocky (Mar 10, 2006)

Ok, here is a question then:

Suppose that at the beginning of 1944, you have to carry out the strategic bombing of Italy, Germany and Japan.

In order to most efficiently focus your resources, you are forced to chose 1 type each of a 5-10 crew 4 engined heavy, 3-7 crew twin engined medium and a 2-3 crew light/strike /attack bomber:

Your choices are;

*4 engined heavy*

Avro Lancaster B. Mk I/III
Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress
Consolidated B-24 J/L/M Liberator
Handley Page Halifax B. Mk IV
Patlyakov Pe-8

*2 engined medium*

Lockheed PV-2 Ventura
Martin B-26G Marauder
North Americane B-25H/J Mitchell
Vickers Wellington Mk X
Petlyakov Pe-2 (M-105PF)
Tuploev Tu-2

*Strike/attack/light bomber*

Bristol Beaufort Mk VIII
Bristol Beaufighter Mk X
De Haviland Mosquito Mk VI/XVI
Douglas A-20G/H/J Havok
Ilyushin Il-2


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 11, 2006)

Erich said:


> hate to say this , but ............. right on the monies gents. Too many silly comparison threads started : Which type A a/c is better than another type A a/c. what a bunch of needless crock and all supposed proved by schematics and facts taken from books.
> 
> who gives a frickin care. the Allies won, the Japanese and Germans lost. Each pilot flying an individual a/c in combat thought that theirs was the best...........no matter bomber of fighter.
> 
> geez I sound like a demon from hell



we all know you're right Erich but that wont really stop us  i kinda enjoy debating stuff like this, in the last lanc/B-24 argument i learnt quite a bit i didn't know before, and found it very interesting............


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 11, 2006)

its annoying but not boring...
I'd choose the Pe-8 as my heavy bomber


----------



## Twitch (Mar 12, 2006)

Evan- you hit it right on. Combat is an adaptive, fluid thing that in no way is set or rigid if it is to be successful. Learning from experience is not done in a vaccum either. This sanitary comparison of mechanical combat machines and weapons is not Consumer Reports doing trials of washing machines. A large number of variable factors fall into play on any given day of combat to influence the outcome of a battle or single combat. Even luck.

We have myriad data to consider in concluding which was "best." There were more B-24s than B-17s yets the B-24 couldn't fly on 2 engines. B-17s did it regularly. Lancs in sufficient numbers (which is theory since they didn't exist) could have bombed successfully in daylight. Their defensive .303s were insufficient against 1944's determined Luftwaffe aerial destroyer onslaught and they would have probably had to have been replaced by .50s. OK. Could the Lancaster and B-17 have done as stand out a job in anti-submarine duties that the B-24 did? Guess so. Could the B-17 excelled in night bombing missions? Probably.

Is the "best" the Lancaster which could tote the biggest bomb ever? Is the "best" the B-24 which contributed to the demise of the U-boats more than any plane? Is the "best" the B-17 which proved she could still fly on one engine and bring her crews home? So by who's criteria must we decide?


----------



## Glider (Mar 12, 2006)

To reply to Jabbors message, my choice would be

Heavy Bomber - Lancaster

Medium - From your list B26 - personal choice Do217 carried a larger bombload a longer distance at a higher speed, with a higher operational ceiling.

Light - Mossie

Comments on the Lancaster. 
Some were in service with twin 50 in the Dorsal position in a Martin Turret. The turret was further forward but a shortage of turrets led to some having the normal turret fitted in the new position.
A number had twin 50's in the rear using either an FN82 turret or a Rose-Rice type. I don't know how widespread these were, but I do know that 83, 101 and 170 squadrons had the Rose-Rice Turret.
Most interestingly in the closing stages of the war a small number of Lancasters were fitted with an Automatic Gun Laying Turret code named Village Inn. This had twin 50's but had a self contained radar that tracked the incomming fighter,
The system consisted of a transmitter/receiver unit mounted in the navigator's compartment and included an automatic ranging facility which relayed range information into the computer section of a Mark IIC gyro gunsight. The turret featured a small scanning aerial that followed the movement of the guns, and a CRT display screen positioned adjacent to the gun sight, the image of which was projected on to the gun sight reflector screen via a semi-transparent mirror.

To use, the gunner manouvred his turret until the target blip projected onto the sight reflector screen coincided with the normal gyro sight aiming graticule, at which the point the guns would be correctly aimed, the inbuilt characteristics of the gyro sight almost guaranteeing a hit should the gunner subsequently open fire.
This was used by 83, 101, 49, 156 and 635 squadrons in the closing months of the war. Although in some cases only some of the aircraft in the squaron were so equipped. It was also used in some Halifax's where it was known as the type D turret.


----------



## Henk (Mar 12, 2006)

Ok, now I see what you mean Twitch. Every bomber was the best in the little part they played in the war ( now pleas guys I said little but I did not mean it. They each did their part. ) So the B-17 could take a punch, the Lancaster could do her job during night and carry the largest and heavyest bomb druting the war and the B-24 busted a lot of Subs asses. 

True, I must say now I understand, they all were the best in the role they played in.

Henk


----------



## plan_D (Mar 12, 2006)

The Lancaster could fly on one engine, y'know, Twitch ?


----------



## Henk (Mar 12, 2006)

I have also heard of B-17 doing it and about Lancasters, but they are not so musch as the B-17 ones.

Henk


----------



## plan_D (Mar 12, 2006)

There's a picture of a Lancaster flying on one engine on this site, somewhere. If the Lancaster can do it, which is proven, then it doesn't matter how many times you hear of either aircraft doing it. They both can ... !


----------



## Henk (Mar 12, 2006)

No, I understand mate no please do not get me wrong, I only meant that I have not heard of a lot of Lancaster's doing so than the B-17.  

Henk


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 12, 2006)

Why not if shes light no bombs and with less then full tanks probably criteria for both a/c thats why they both can dump fuel


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 12, 2006)

I'd imagine that it would also have to be an inboard engine, the yaw induced by an outboard engine coupled with the rudder compensation (drag) would be criticle.

I think the old saying "Always fly as far into the crash as possible" is really the crux of the matter on any 4 engine (or more) aircraft that is limited to 1 powerplant.

wmaxt


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 12, 2006)

I think it would be "ideal" to have the inner running a lot would depend on which engines the hydraulics and electrics were slaved to but without a doubt you would be tossing everything of weight out which leads to this question could the B17 jettison the ball turret I recall reading about that years ago


----------



## Henk (Mar 12, 2006)

Yes, they could do that, but they normaly just crashed with it still on,because they did not always have the tools totake it off. They also dumped everything that will be dead weight to make the aircraft stay up high and also go faster. 

Henk


----------



## Glider (Mar 12, 2006)

The ball turret was dropped whenever possible to save weight and improve the chances of a crash landing. If kept on the ball turret and mounting would go up into the top of the B17 breaking its back and more or less destroying its structural integrity. This in turn significantly increased the chances of the crew being killed or seriously injured in the crash.


----------



## Henk (Mar 12, 2006)

Oh, ok mate. Thank you for correcting me. I just went on what I could remember. 

Henk


----------



## plan_D (Mar 12, 2006)

The picture of the Lancaster running on one engine is here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2343&start=0 

It'll take a long time to load because it's full of my WWII pictures. But it's near the bottom, amazingly enough amongst the Lancaster pictures. It's a Mk.II .


----------



## evangilder (Mar 13, 2006)

Late war B-17s carried a tool kit on the ball turret mount that contained everything needed to jettison the ball turret. There are several stories of B-17s that belly landed without the ball turret that returned to the skies in just a few days. If the ball turret stays in a belly landing, like Glider pointed out, it would likely drive the mount through the top of the aircraft and that would make it a write-off. 

Henk, I wasn't trying to sound critical of your posts. I was just pointing out that there are some things that you picked up that are not correct. It's all a learning experience. It was just some friendly advice.


----------



## Twitch (Mar 13, 2006)

It all just boils down to personal favorites and that is subjective and nothing more. It's like saying the Stuka is the "best" dive bomber and another person likes the Dauntless.

If there was some panel of experts passing judgement on the "best" of anything there still wouldn't be a consensus because everyone would not agree or would snipe at the "experts" qualifications. 

So instead of inscensing people who are easily inscensed and causing silly arguements perhaps it's best to say "what is your favorite____?" and leave it at that.


----------



## Glider (Mar 13, 2006)

At least no one has said which is the easiest to build, says he ducking into a nice deep bunker


----------



## Henk (Mar 13, 2006)

evangilder mate it is cool. I just said what I remember, but thank you very much for correcting me and teaching me something new.

I was stupid not to add that you can correct me if I am wrong.

Thank you for doing so and thanks for the advice I will do so next time.

Henk


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 14, 2006)

Haven't read the whole thread but the upper turret of the B-17 had a habit of crushing the cockpit in a crash landing.

I thought the ball turret was retractable.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 14, 2006)

The ball turret in the B-24 is retractable, not so in the B-17. I have not heard about the upper turret doing that. I seem to remember that it had a fairly substantial floor to ceiling support for it.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 14, 2006)

Ive never heard of the B17 cockpit getting crushed by the upper turret in a crash landing. In fact, thats the first time I've ever heard that assertion and doubt its veracity.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 14, 2006)

That's a new one to me too, syscom.


----------



## Henk (Mar 14, 2006)

Never, I do not think that it can happen. Never ever heard of a B-17 crash where the turret crushed the cockpit.

I can not believe that.

Henk


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2006)

The B-17 upper turret wasn't that heavy and was well behind the cockpit. Although there was armor in it - it was still an integral part of the structure. The Ball turret retracted and in the situation where a B-17 crashed landed with the ball extended, it would either push into the fuselage or break the back of the aircraft. I've seen a ball turret, sat inside one and even got one operational at Aviation Warehouse (Hawthorne Ca.) back in 1978. I'd say the chances are even "fair to good" that if you got stuck inside one during a crash you might survive...


----------



## Henk (Mar 14, 2006)

Yes, I think you do not have a 0% chance of surviving. It depends also on how you crash.

Henk


----------



## evangilder (Mar 15, 2006)

Joe, I don't recall the B-17 ball turret having a mechanism to retract it. I know it did on the B-24, but have not seen it on the B-17s that I have been in.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 15, 2006)

evangilder said:


> Joe, I don't recall the B-17 ball turret having a mechanism to retract it. I know it did on the B-24, but have not seen it on the B-17s that I have been in.


You are right!!!


----------



## evangilder (Mar 15, 2006)

No biggie, just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 20, 2006)

I can't give a source, maybe Freeman.

The upper turret was not well behind the cockpit.

diagram, http://www.381st.org/aircraft-closeup.html More photos/daigrams here, http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=69780&sid=ed6859740d65b2d920d61b87d8c05863


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 20, 2006)

KraziKanuK said:


> I can't give a source, maybe Freeman.
> 
> The upper turret was not well behind the cockpit.
> 
> diagram, http://www.381st.org/aircraft-closeup.html More photos/daigrams here, http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=69780&sid=ed6859740d65b2d920d61b87d8c05863


Great sites!

That was behind station 3D, I believe this is where the cockpit went together with the mid fuselage - it was behind the cockpit and although those pictures seem to show it over the cockpit it was several feet behind the pilot and co-pilot seats.

Bottom line - The turret, even if it came through the structure isn't coming down on the pilot....


----------



## Glider (Mar 20, 2006)

Superb site.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 27, 2006)

Not several feet behind the pilots.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 27, 2006)

The pilots sat at where the skylight is - midway between b c on your drawing - from C to the middle of the turret is at least 4 feet, I've been on 2 B-17s with turrets, I've seen them!!!!




Once again - the turret WILL NOT fall on the pilot and the co=ipt during a crash!!


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 27, 2006)

Well good for you.










As can bee seen very clearly, the pilots sat with their backs at the frame in the side windows, ~2.5 ft from the centre of the turret.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 27, 2006)

KraziKanuK said:


> As can bee seen very clearly, the pilots sat with their backs at the frame in the side windows, ~2.5 ft from the centre of the turret.


 its a lot more than 2.5 feet but if thats what you think -OK.

I know Russ Owens, he flies Sentimental Journey, the last B-17 I was in. I may see him and the airplane at the end of April, if so i'll measure the distance.

Bottom line, the turret did not and will not fall on the pilot's heads!!


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 27, 2006)

In all of belly landing photo's of b17's Ive seen, there not one that shows the upper turret being damaged. The cockpit and turret have always been intact.

I have seen B24 belly landings in which the forward section was ripped from the center section, with the turret being pushed up or down.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 27, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> In all of belly landing photo's of b17's Ive seen, there not one that shows the upper turret being damaged. The cockpit and turret have always been intact.
> 
> I have seen B24 belly landings in which the forward section was ripped from the center section, with the turret being pushed up or down.



Agree!


----------



## Henk (Mar 27, 2006)

Yes, I agree I have also never seen pictures that show the upper turret that were damaged.

Henk


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 27, 2006)

KraziKanuK said:


> Well good for you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I to, have been in a B-17 with a turret, on the ground unfortunately, and it is about 4'.

If you noticewhere those pictures were taken, that person is in front of the turret mount.

Another thing that must be considered is that the ring around the turret is mounted to the frame of the aircraft. This ring has to absorb the following
1, the Torque created turning the turret, several hundred pounds of rotational force maybe as high as 500lbs plus when it must reverse rotation.
2, Support the turret, gunner, controls, guns, ammo and framework.
3, Absorb the recoil

This is not a light structure!

wmaxt


----------



## Henk (Mar 27, 2006)

Still the thing will not collapse in a bell crash landing.

Henk


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 27, 2006)

On an assembly cutaway featured in the Book Flying Fortress by David Jablonsky, the cockpit stations are labled numeric-alpha. Around where the pilot sits its shown as station 3C. Normally stations are numbered by inches and I believe that in this case each numeric-alpha station represents one foot. If seems the gun turret is at station 3G which would put it at four feet aft of the middle of the pilots seat.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 27, 2006)

Ah I hate stations. I hat them, hate them, hate them. FBJ knows what I talking about. Fucking Weight And Balance computations.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 27, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Ah I hate stations. I hat them, hate them, hate them. FBJ knows what I talking about. Fucking Weight And Balance computations.


Weight + Arm = Moment - Tare = ??
Yep!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 27, 2006)

And then everything falls out of limits and the real shit starts.


----------



## SpitTrop (Mar 28, 2006)

Easy one; Had the B-17 and B-24 been able to bomb in daylight, without fighter escort, as was planned, then they would have been the best. However they couldn't, consequently the Lancaster was best because it 
carried a far larger bombload to the target, and its range was good also. 
The role of the bomber is to get maximum bombload on the target.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2006)

SpitTrop said:


> Easy one; Had the B-17 and B-24 been able to bomb in daylight, without fighter escort, as was planned, then they would have been the best. However they couldn't, consequently the Lancaster was best because it
> carried a far larger bombload to the target, and its range was good also.
> The role of the bomber is to get maximum bombload on the target.


You have a point but the reason why the strategic bombing campain was eventually successful was because of ROUND THE CLOCK bombing. Although I believe the Lancaster was superior to the both the B-17 and B-24 in its bombing ability, its not to say it did take devastating losses while operating in a potentially more dangerous environment. Not one bomber could be singled out as the "best" in the ETO - they all had their attributes and negatives and all were responsible for the defeat of Nazi Germany...

Now as far as the "Best" bomber of WW2 - hands down the B-29....


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 28, 2006)

I'd say the B32 was on the verge of being the 2nd best bomber. Unfortunatly for "it" (but good for the aircrews), the war ended before its full potential could be demonstrated


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I'd say the B32 was on the verge of being the 2nd best bomber. Unfortunatly for "it" (but good for the aircrews), the war ended before its full potential could be demonstrated


 And I agree!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2006)

I fail to see how the B-32 would be any better than the lancaster Mk.VI (1943, btw) or Lincoln.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> I fail to see how the B-32 would be any better than the lancaster Mk.VI (1943, btw) or Lincoln.........



The B-32 carried just about the same bomb load farther and faster than any mark of the Lancaster or Lincoln (sorry to say it lanc). It was maybe a quarter a step behind the B-29 in capability and advancements......

Specifications (B-32)
General characteristics
Crew: 10 
Length: 83 ft 1 in (25.3 m) 
Wingspan: 135 ft 0 in (41.2 m) 
Height: 33 ft 0 in (10.1 m) 
Wing area: 1,442 ft² (132.1 m²) 
Empty weight: 60,000 lb (27,000 kg) 
Loaded weight: 100,000 lb (45,000 kg) 
Maximum gross takeoff weight: 111,500 lb (50,580 kg) 
Powerplant: 4× Wright R-3350-23 Cyclone radial engines, 2,200 hp (1,600 kW) each 
Performance
Maximum speed: 310 kt (357 mph, 575 km/h) 
Cruise speed: 252 kt (290 mph, 467 km/h) 
Range: 3,000 miles (1,300 km) 
Service ceiling: 35,000 ft (11,000 m) 
Climb rate: 658 ft/min (3.4 m/s) 
Wing loading: 70.3 lb/ft² (341 kg/m²) 
Power/mass: 0.088 hp/lb (0.15 kW/kg) 
Armament
Guns: 10× .50-caliber (12.7 mm) machine guns 
Bombs: 20,000 lb (9,100 kg) of bombs 

Specifications (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 (120.8 m²) 
Empty weight: 36 828 lb (16,705 kg) 
Loaded weight: 63,000 lb (28,636 kg) 
Maximum gross takeoff weight: lb (kg) 
Powerplant: 4× Rolls-Royce Merlin XX piston engines, 1,280 hp (954 kW) each 
Performance
Maximum speed: 280 mph at 15,000 ft (448 km/h at 5,600 m) 
Range: 2,700 miles with minimal bomb load (4,320 km) 
Service ceiling: 23,500 ft (8,160 m) 
Climb rate: ft/min (m/min) 
Wing loading: lb/ft² (kg/m²) 
Power/mass: hp/lb (kW/kg) 
Armament
8x 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns in three turrets 
Up to 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) of bombs, typical load 14,000 lb (6,350 kg) 

Lincoln General Specifications
Wingspan: 120 ft (36.58 m) 
Length: 78 ft 34 in (23.86 m) 
Height: 17 ft 34 in (5.27 m) 
Weight: 43,400 lb (19686 kg) empty, 75,000 lb (34019 kg) max take-off 
Powerplant: four 1,750 hp (1305 kW) Rolls-Royce Merlin 85 piston engines 
Maximum speed: 295 mph (475 km/h) at 15,000 ft (4750 m) 
Range: 1,470 miles (2,400 km) with maximum bomb-load, 3,580 miles (2,200) unladen 
Service ceiling: 30,500 ft (9295 m) 
Armament: 
Twin .50 cal (12.7 mm) M2 machine guns in nose, dorsal and tail turrets, 
alternatively twin 20mm Hispano cannon in dorsal turret 
Up to 22,000 lb (6350 kg) of bombs 
Crew: 7, 
front gunner / bomb aimer 
pilot 
flight engineer / co-pilot 
navigator 
wireless operator, 
dorsal gunner 
rear gunner


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2006)

> Range: 3,000 miles



with what load? 

and note also i said lancaster Mk.VI, for what i assume will be most of you that are un-aware, that's 350mph with a sustained cruise of 310+ mph- in 1943!! if she'd seen more service (she flew more than the, i believe it was 11 combat missions that the B-32 flew in WWII syscom said?) then imagine what she'd be like by 1945! 

besides i don't really see what this has to do with the -17/-24/lanc argument.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> with what load?
> 
> and note also i said lancaster Mk.VI, for what i assume will be most of you that are un-aware, that's 350mph with a sustained cruise of 310+ mph- in 1943!! if she'd seen more service (she flew more than the, i believe it was 11 combat missions that the B-32 flew in WWII syscom said?) then imagine what she'd be like by 1945!
> 
> besides i don't really see what this has to do with the -17/-24/lanc argument.........


And the B-32 also had sustained speeds of over 350 mph and reached altitudes of 39,000 feet, and carried the same bomb load as the B-29, there's no comparison - I could agree with you when comparing the Lanc to the B-24 or B-17 but the B-32 was just about the same class as the B-29.

But in comparing the Lanc to the -17 and -24 yes it was(is) the superior aircraft....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2006)

> And the B-32 also had sustained speeds of over 350 mph and reached altitudes of 39,000 feet, and carried the same bomb load as the B-29, there's no comparison



i do understand your point i'm just trying to get you to picture what a 1943 plane that could kind of match the 1945 B-32 would be capable of with the extra years of development the -32 had............


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i do understand your point i'm just trying to get you to picture what a 1943 plane that could kind of match the 1945 B-32 would be capable of with the extra years of development the -32 had............


 Point taken however the first B-32 reached speeds of up to 375 mph with a 2000 pound ballast load - that was in 1942/ 43. The program got so screwed up and there were so many changes, the first B-32s didn't reach the Pacific until 1945...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2006)

> B-32 reached speeds of up to 375 mph with a 2000 pound ballast load - that was in 1942/ 43



point taken also, however the Mk.VI's figures would taken with full combat load (including fuel + bombs), again in '43........

however i don't think we can argue for either one being second best, neither saw enough serivce to prove themselves (that's the Lanc VI, not the other lancs...........)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> point taken also, however the Mk.VI's figures would taken with full combat load (including fuel + bombs), again in '43........
> 
> however i don't think we can argue for either one being second best, neither saw enough serivce to prove themselves (that's the Lanc VI, not the other lancs...........)



Agree...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2006)

which makes the lanc the second best heavy bomber of WWII!!


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 28, 2006)

Agreed, lanc.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2006)

SpitTrop said:


> Easy one; Had the B-17 and B-24 been able to bomb in daylight, without fighter escort, as was planned, then they would have been the best. However they couldn't, consequently the Lancaster was best because it
> carried a far larger bombload to the target, and its range was good also.
> The role of the bomber is to get maximum bombload on the target.



Well the B-29 is actually the best bomber of WW2 but between the 3 I agree with you that the Lancaster is better however your logic does not make sense here.

You say if the B-17 and B-24 could bomb without fighter escort they would be the best, and therefore the Lancaster is better? That does not make sense. Do you really think the Lancaster could do that during the day? No it could not, why do you thinkt he RAF Bomber Command stopped bombing during the day, because of the losses.


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 30, 2006)

Even though all of the above were excellent:

B-17 could take punishment.

B-24 had a long range.

Lancaster the greatest pay load.

The B-29 ended the war with just 2 aircraft


----------



## markvs (Mar 31, 2006)

In my opinion, biased though it may be, the lanc is first, Let me explain. 
I have only 1 first hand story of each type of plane here in NZ.
B17, this aircraft albeit piloted [apparently] by a drunk crew took off from the hobsonville airbase, and promptly self destructed. ergo; loser. 

B24. This aircraft came down in a tidal mangrove swamp north of the aforementioned airbase, with only the engines and guns being recovered. { there was also a rumor of p.o.w's being on board, but no mention if they were also recovered.} ergo; loser.

Lanc;
Of the three aircraft, flying around Nz this is the only one to survive up till today. I have seen this plane and apparently, apart from having a cracked mainspar [ according to rumor] it is in 1 piece. ergo; we have a winner!

Therefore my conclusion, with extreme logic is that the Lanc wins hands down, It is the only one left!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 31, 2006)

yes there is a complete Kiwi Mk.VII, she doesn't fly though.............



> B-24 had a long range.



the lanc had greater payload-to-range abilities.........


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 1, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes there is a complete Kiwi Mk.VII, she doesn't fly though.............
> 
> 
> 
> the lanc had greater payload-to-range abilities.........



As we have discussed before, the payload/range discrepancy is due to mission profiles and defensive set-up, not aircraft capabilities. However the large size of the bomb bay and ability to carry a much wider range of ordinance does give the Lancaster the edge in an environment like the ETO. So I'll accept the Lancaster as the second best bomber in WWII for it's real virtues.

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 1, 2006)

But the Lanc wouldnt have been able to perform as effectively in the PTO like the B24 could.


----------



## Glider (Apr 1, 2006)

This is going the way the previous debate went.


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 1, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> But the Lanc wouldnt have been able to perform as effectively in the PTO like the B24 could.



I think it would have done OK. The B-24 did have a 2,000lb bomb load at 3,000mi range, which I don't think the Lanc could do. The Lanc was a relatively low altitude bomber still had a good payload and range both of which would have been decreased with the addition of armor around the crew positions and maybe the radiators and an upgrade to .50 M2s. The upgrades would have been fairly simple in the Pacific, and with escort they would have done the job.

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 1, 2006)

Only drawback for fighter escort in the PTO was the generally long ranges the fighters had to fly in. Not to mention the usually unpredictable weather the fighters had to contend with.

Once you add the heavier .50's and additional armour to the Lanc, its performance begins to degrade.

Plus its liguid cooled engines were more prone to damage as compared to air cooled ones.


----------



## Glider (Apr 1, 2006)

The Lanc could go 2,500 miles with a 7,000lb bomb load I admit to not knowing how far it could carry a 2,000lb bomb load but 3,000 miles doesn't seem unachieveable.

As for defence some had twin 50's in the dorsal position and twin 50's could be fitted in the rear turret complete with its own gun laying radar. Which wold go a long way to making up the gap.

Loss rates were almost exactly the same for the Lancaster as the B24 in Europe by day and by night so any weakness in having a radiator was more than made up for by strength in other areas. 

Syscom, you know all this as it was made clear in a previous thread. Why do you ignore this info?


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 1, 2006)

The B24 went against day fighters that could attack from any position.

The Lanc was against specialized night fighters that essentially could only attack from behind.

As I said in the other thread, if the B24 flew exclusively at night, its loss rate would go down. If the Lanc flew exclusively in the day, its loss rate would go way way up.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2006)

markvs said:


> In my opinion, biased though it may be, the lanc is first, Let me explain.
> I have only 1 first hand story of each type of plane here in NZ.
> B17, this aircraft albeit piloted [apparently] by a drunk crew took off from the hobsonville airbase, and promptly self destructed. ergo; loser.
> 
> ...



Your opinion is respected and valid but you do realize that throughout the world there are many B-17 and B-24s still flying.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 2, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Your opinion is respected and valid but you do realize that throughout the world there are many B-17 and B-24s still flying.


 And even fewer Lancasters....


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 2, 2006)

Actually Sys, the Lancasters weren't up against 'specialised NF's', unless you refer to the He-219....They were largely up against Germany's best all-rounder, the Ju-88, not so often a Do-217 variant, the failed day-zerstorer, the Me-110 [which did better at night] and the Luftwaffe's day-fighters doing night-shift....

It should be noted that Lancasters did day trips once air superiority was more established, but the only US ones that did nightshift were RAF B-17 B-24's in 100 Group doing countermeasures.....

Also of note, B-29 success over Japan was only really achieved by Curtis LeMay when he adopted RAF Bomber Command tactics [and radar] until it was nuke-time......The firestorms became just like the RAF ones in Germany....!

All in all though, it was cooperative effort and no-other country could compare to US manufacture expertise manpower....it's a shame they didn't just get their first jet-engined bomber up running sooner......

The Lancaster is my pick of Bomber [B-24 2nd]
The B-25 for medium [B-26 2nd]
The Mosquito for light/heavy....[naturally]...They had their own Force...!


----------



## Glider (Apr 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The B24 went against day fighters that could attack from any position.
> 
> The Lanc was against specialized night fighters that essentially could only attack from behind.
> 
> As I said in the other thread, if the B24 flew exclusively at night, its loss rate would go down. If the Lanc flew exclusively in the day, its loss rate would go way way up.



I know you keep saying this, but you know that its Bull. Lancasters did fly in daylight and when they did their loss rates were the same as the B24. The evidience was given to you in some detail in the previous thread and you accepted it.

B24's that flew at night also had similar loss ratios to the Lancaster, that was also given to you and you accepted it. 

Nightfighters could only attack from the rear in all but the most exceptional situations no matter what the target. The fact that it was a Lancaster or a Dakota made no difference.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2006)

They are all good vaild arguments (well most of them except the easier to make point that he allways throws out there and is allways knocked down ), however there has been no case made to prove that the B-24 and the B-17 were better than the Lancaster.

Heres how I think it should be:

1. B-29
2. Lancaster
3. B-17
4. B-24
5. B-25


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 2, 2006)

Holy crap, is the Lanc vs. B-24 argument _still_ going on?!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2006)

Yeah it got started back up, mostly when someone made a real biased remark about the Lancaster (guess what it was not Lanc) and then you know who started his biased about the B-24, and now we are back again at making facts that really dont prove anything.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 2, 2006)

I remember the post praising the Lancaster, I just can't believe that we're back to the free-for-all.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 2, 2006)

Gemhorse said:


> Actually Sys, the Lancasters weren't up against 'specialised NF's', unless you refer to the He-219....They were largely up against Germany's best all-rounder, the Ju-88, not so often a Do-217 variant, the failed day-zerstorer, the Me-110 [which did better at night] and the Luftwaffe's day-fighters doing night-shift....
> 
> It should be noted that Lancasters did day trips once air superiority was more established, but the only US ones that did nightshift were RAF B-17 B-24's in 100 Group doing countermeasures.....
> 
> ...



While true, the effectiveness of the B-29 over Japan only came into its own with tactics developed by LeMay - the B-29 was a technological leap over any heavy bomber of WW2, no other contemporary comes close, Lancaster, B-17 or B-24....

It was the best bomber of WW2 hands down...


----------



## jhor9 (Apr 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The facts were clear the B24 was tied with the Lanc for 2nd place (overall) and the B24 was clearly the superior of the two in the PTO/CBI.



As a B17 pilot, I would rather have B24s along with us on missions. If we were attacked by fighters they never bothered us, they went after the Libs


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 2, 2006)

jhor9 said:


> As a B17 pilot, I would rather have B24s along with us on missions. If we were attacked by fighters they never bothered us, they went after the Libs



Figures...


----------



## Hot Space (Apr 3, 2006)

Some US B-17's also flew a night as well, but not often. The underside were sprayed black


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 3, 2006)

I noticed in some diagrams that the 17 and 24 had deicing boots on the wings were they all equiped with this or was it an add on as time went on and what did the Lancs and Halifaxs use for deicing


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 3, 2006)

KraziKanuK said:


> I can't give a source, maybe Freeman.
> 
> The upper turret was not well behind the cockpit.
> 
> diagram, http://www.381st.org/aircraft-closeup.html More photos/daigrams here, http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=69780&sid=ed6859740d65b2d920d61b87d8c05863



From a new member...

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/showthread.php?p=155345#post155345

"About 3 feet."


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 3, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Heres how I think it should be:
> 
> 1. B-29
> 2. Lancaster
> ...



I agree with this assessment, the flexibility of the Lanc for specialized bombing missions makes a difference as is the British willingness to experiment. A funny thought - the B-17s and B-24s took the heat off enough to give the Brits/Lancs the ability to do this.

BTW: the B-17 was still in active coastal service as "Dumbo's" in '67, drones into the '60s and as fire bombers into the late 80s.

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 3, 2006)

If the B17 was ranked #3 in your poll, why were they withdrawn from PTO/CBI early in 1943? The B17 was a rugged aircraft no doubt, but its payload and range were lacking.


----------



## Glider (Apr 3, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> If the B17 was ranked #3 in your poll, why were they withdrawn from PTO/CBI early in 1943? The B17 was a rugged aircraft no doubt, but its payload and range were lacking.



You awnsered your own question. The question you asked was, 'why was the B17 withdrawn from the PTO in 1943?' 
The reply you gave was, 'The B17 was lacking in payload and range'. 

What was needed in the PTO, payload and range.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 3, 2006)

So you should have put the B24 in front of the B17.


----------



## markvs (Apr 4, 2006)

Please note, my earlier opinions are somewhat tongue in cheek, and, if I could find where the smilies have gone would give you a good dose of them.
In my opinion, the B29 should not be mentioned in such illustrious and attractive company as these fine planes.
The B29 in my thoughts, is a plane belonging to the nrxt generation, where things like form and "beauty" were totally forgotten in a rush towards ugliness.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 4, 2006)

markvs said:


> Please note, my earlier opinions are somewhat tongue in cheek, and, if I could find where the smilies have gone would give you a good dose of them.
> In my opinion, the B29 should not be mentioned in such illustrious and attractive company as these fine planes.
> The B29 in my thoughts, is a plane belonging to the nrxt generation, where things like form and "beauty" were totally forgotten in a rush towards ugliness.


 Form and beauty? the B-29 was one of the most beautiful aircraft to emerge from WW2!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 4, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Form and beauty? the B-29 was one of the most beautiful aircraft to emerge from WW2!


I tend to agree. While the Lancaster will always hold a place in my heart,(and lanc will no doubt reach through the monitor and slap me for this  ) it wasn't the prettiest bomber in the air. Neither was the Liberator. The B-29 however was a thing of silvery streamlined beauty. 8) 

The B-17? Ehh...so-so.


----------



## Henk (Apr 4, 2006)

So so my ass. Look at pictures of B-17 returning to base and I would say pretty great. I would rather fly in a B-17 than a B-24.

B-29 is a beauty and were way advanced for its time.

Henk


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 4, 2006)

Henk said:


> So so my ass. Look at pictures of B-17 returning to base and I would say pretty great.


Yeah, s'pose. But then, I'd say the same thing for the Lancaster. It wasn't _great_ looking by my estimation, but it was ok.


----------



## Henk (Apr 4, 2006)

Ok, yes there I would agree with you. I do not like the Lanc as much as the B-17 or the B-29.

It just does not do it for me, but it did have great things.

Henk


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 4, 2006)

Can't comment further, it gets censored removed.....


----------



## Henk (Apr 4, 2006)

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 5, 2006)

hmm... was the Halifax also used in the night bombing along with the Lancs?


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 5, 2006)

Yes, the ratio of Halifax to Lancasters on night bombing operations in 1943-1945 was about 4:5.

On March 31, 1944, Bomber Command servicable frontline strength (i.e. the number of bombers it could put in the air at any one time) was

532 Lancaster
370 Halifax
57 Stirling
63 Mosquitos 

by June 1944, frontline strength had climbed to 

856 Lancaster
809 Halifax
121 Stirling
297 Mosquitos

of which approximately 84% were available at any one time.


----------



## markvs (Apr 6, 2006)

If you think that a cigar with wings is a beauty, then I am afraid that you guys are a bunch of sad puppies.
B17, how can you go past the curves and radii a, real shape not a tube with ends from a water tank 
The lanc I admit to a :rolleyes person dosent look much, but what a plane. They just exude power, and the sense of the struggle that was the european theatre.


----------



## markvs (Apr 6, 2006)

Hey just found the smilies, now I just have to copy them right 8)


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 6, 2006)

markvs said:


> If you think that a cigar with wings is a beauty, then I am afraid that you guys are a bunch of sad puppies.
> B17, how can you go past the curves and radii a, real shape not a tube with ends from a water tank
> The lanc I admit to a :rolleyes person dosent look much, but what a plane. They just exude power, and the sense of the struggle that was the european theatre.


never thought of it that way, but its nice cause it's shape is almost perfect


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 6, 2006)

markvs said:


> If you think that a cigar with wings is a beauty, then I am afraid that you guys are a bunch of sad puppies.
> B17, how can you go past the curves and radii a, real shape not a tube with ends from a water tank
> The lanc I admit to a :rolleyes person dosent look much, but what a plane. They just exude power, and the sense of the struggle that was the european theatre.


 The B-29 is a streamlined beauty - who needs curves when you could fly fast!


----------



## markvs (Apr 7, 2006)

Surely, if you want to talk speed, then you will, of ne3cessity have to intr0oduce the mosquito. 
I'm not sure if my facts are right [ but then who lets facts stand in thee way of a good rousing discussion?] but I have heard it said that mossies carried the same or more bombload than the B17 for the same range, went a lot, lot faster, and only had two crew. Not only that, after dropping their load, they were a fighter with a fighters manoeverability. { Try looping your b29 then?]


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 7, 2006)

fine, lets see that mossie drop a nuke or firebomb tokyo at night


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> A funny thought - the B-17s and B-24s took the heat off enough to give the Brits/Lancs the ability to do this.



do you really believe that? you think that if the americans weren't doing us this huge favour by bombing whilst we were off plying around with stupid little ideas we wouldn't have done it? no, firstly you weren't doing us a favour, you were fighting for freedom in the same way as everyone else, secondly like i said if you weren't bombing we would still've come up with even more extreme ideas 



NS said:


> wasn't the prettiest bomber in the air



actually, with the possible exception of the mossie, she was ........



> I'm not sure if my facts are right [ but then who lets facts stand in thee way of a good rousing discussion?] but I have heard it said that mossies carried the same or more bombload than the B17 for the same range, went a lot, lot faster, and only had two crew.



almost, but not quite.....

the B-17 normally carried a really rather useless load of 6,000lbs, but it wasn't unheard of for them to carry a mere 4,000lbs, both of which are loads the mossie could and did carry, she couldn't carry them quite as far as the B-17 but she could carry them faster, and like you say, with 1/5th of the crew...........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 7, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> do you really believe that? you think that if the americans weren't doing us this huge favour by bombing whilst we were off plying around with stupid little ideas we wouldn't have done it? no, firstly you weren't doing us a favour, you were fighting for freedom in the same way as everyone else, secondly like i said if you weren't bombing we would still've come up with even more extreme ideas
> 
> 
> 
> ...



While I mainly agree lanc, 6,000 lbs in WW2 wasn't useless, especially if a flight of 50 or more B-17s (or any other WW2 heavy) were carrying it 1000 miles


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2006)

if you ask someone in berlin if they'd rather be bombed by B-17s or lancs, they're gonna say B-17s, lancs could carry more than double the load to berlin (almost 4 times if she takes a grand slam, which she was capable of).........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 7, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> if you ask someone in berlin if they'd rather be bombed by B-17s or lancs, they're gonna say B-17s, lancs could carry more than double the load to berlin (almost 4 times if she takes a grand slam, which she was capable of).........


 Agree but that's like saying would you rather be kicked in the nuts or punched in the nose......


----------



## elmilitaro (Apr 7, 2006)

I'd be punched in the nose.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 7, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree but that's like saying would you rather be kicked in the nuts or punched in the nose......



hahahahhahahahahah


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 7, 2006)

markvs said:


> If you think that a cigar with wings is a beauty, then I am afraid that you guys are a bunch of sad puppies.
> B17, how can you go past the curves and radii a, real shape not a tube with ends from a water tank
> The lanc I admit to a :rolleyes person dosent look much, but what a plane. They just exude power, and the sense of the struggle that was the european theatre.



A cylinder is actually the strongest aircraft fuselage shape.


----------



## markvs (Apr 8, 2006)

yes, a cylinder is the strongest shape, but in a plane it is also the most ugly,


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 8, 2006)

markvs said:


> yes, a cylinder is the strongest shape, but in a plane it is also the most ugly,


 All in the eye of the beholder.....


----------



## markvs (Apr 9, 2006)

Well, this beholder sure aint a one eyed one [much]


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 9, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> While I mainly agree lanc, 6,000 lbs in WW2 wasn't useless, especially if a flight of 50 or more B-17s (or any other WW2 heavy) were carrying it 1000 miles



What targets 1000mi away from GB did the B-17 bomb with 6000lb of bombs. A 1000mi is to Poland's eastern border.

It would be informative to see an *official* range vs bombload for the B-17/B-24.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 9, 2006)

markvs said:


> yes, a cylinder is the strongest shape, but in a plane it is also the most ugly,


ever heard of the French bombers lanc likes so much? they are boxes... and you say cylinders are most ugly?


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 9, 2006)

Im not aware of any targets in easten Poland that were targets for the 8th AF


----------



## jhor9 (May 18, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I more than proved my points.



No way Jose, If you personally flew both B24 and B17, after your experience there would be only one choice.
I get a kick out of you armchair Generals


----------



## jhor9 (May 18, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> I noticed in some diagrams that the 17 and 24 had deicing boots on the wings were they all equiped with this or was it an add on as time went on and what did the Lancs and Halifaxs use for deicing



During my tour deicing boots were deactivated, I think because the deicing fluid was combustable


----------



## jhor9 (May 18, 2006)

Henk said:


> No, I understand mate no please do not get me wrong, I only meant that I have not heard of a lot of Lancaster's doing so than the B-17.
> 
> Henk



My comment regarding B17 flying on 1 engine----I don't believe that it couldn't sustain level flight.I'm sure that if it had enough altitude it could travel a long distance giving up height for distance. It definately could fly on 2 engines, but everything that was not bolted down would have to be thrown overboard. I persoally never had to fly with only 1 or 2 engines. Many times I flew on 3 engines


----------



## jhor9 (May 18, 2006)

Glider said:


> The ball turret was dropped whenever possible to save weight and improve the chances of a crash landing. If kept on the ball turret and mounting would go up into the top of the B17 breaking its back and more or less destroying its structural integrity. This in turn significantly increased the chances of the crew being killed or seriously injured in the crash.



I may be wrong, but I don't think that the B17 ball was able to be dropped during flight. I really don't remember.


----------



## jhor9 (May 18, 2006)

evangilder said:


> Joe, I don't recall the B-17 ball turret having a mechanism to retract it. I know it did on the B-24, but have not seen it on the B-17s that I have been in.


 
I can positively state that it wasn't retractable


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2006)

jhor9 said:


> I may be wrong, but I don't think that the B17 ball was able to be dropped during flight. I really don't remember.


We had several where I used to work (about 28 years ago). I remember seeing a handle that seemed to split the ball in two for egress purposes, but from I remember it seemed the ball had to be straight...

I could be wrong about this - I have a lot of dead brain cells in 28 years...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2006)

jhor9 said:


> I get a kick out of you armchair Generals




Wow I love people that just jump in here and say stuff like that. Thats great that you may have flown them or what not, but everyone is here to learn and we dont critizise people for posting what they know and if they are wrong they then they are taught and corrected not called armchair Generals. I am sure you dont know squat about my Blackhawk that I fly and work on but I would not call you a Armchair General for that.


----------



## syscom3 (May 19, 2006)

I'm a classic example of an arm chair pilot!

 

When its an expert who has flown the planes in question tells me I'm wrong, I sure cant argue about it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2006)

Dont take me wrong, the people who have flown it are obviously the utmost athority on the subject and should be believed, I just hate it when people come in here and say things like that to people especially when they dont know anything about the person.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 19, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Dont take me wrong, the people who have flown it are obviously the utmost athority on the subject and should be believed, I just hate it when people come in here and say things like that to people especially when they dont know anything about the person.



Especially that guy who got insulted becuase I said the Mig-25 was a pig and then he told me I had a dismal aviation career!


----------



## Glider (May 19, 2006)

FJ You need to remember that to a lot of people, the real thing is almost as good as the Flight Sim!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 19, 2006)




----------



## syscom3 (May 19, 2006)

Whats wrong with flight sims?

Theyre can be as accurate as the designer wants it to be and for any budget!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 19, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Whats wrong with flight sims?
> 
> Theyre can be as accurate as the designer wants it to be and for any budget!


So could a "blow up doll."


----------



## syscom3 (May 19, 2006)

"Blow Up Doll"............ what a great name for a Lancaster. Hehehhehe, those Brits can be quite kinky at times!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 19, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> those Brits can be quite kinky at times!!!!!!!!!!


 so I'm told!


----------



## Gnomey (May 19, 2006)

LOL!!


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 19, 2006)

It was Canadian.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> So could a "blow up doll."



 I could not stop laughing when I read that! Damn.


----------



## Glider (May 20, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Whats wrong with flight sims?
> 
> Theyre can be as accurate as the designer wants it to be and for any budget!



The defence rests its case, some people do believe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2006)

And those people have never felt the vibrations, heard the noise, felt the turbulence, and heard the rounds pinging into the skin of there aircraft or they would realize that it is not as accurate as they think.


----------



## syscom3 (May 20, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And those people have never felt the vibrations, heard the noise, felt the turbulence, and heard the rounds pinging into the skin of there aircraft or they would realize that it is not as accurate as they think.



OK, the simulator will be sitting on one of those 'shaker" tables to simulate turbulence, kids will be employed to throw things at the mock cockpit to simulate "pings" and a nice speaker setup will be used to give you 3D sound effects


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2006)

You crack me up sometimes. 

Maybe then Ill buy your simulator!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 20, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You crack me up sometimes.
> 
> Maybe then Ill buy your simulator!


Or a blow up doll!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Gnomey (May 21, 2006)

Or both...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 21, 2006)

The blow up doll can be my co-pilot.


----------



## syscom3 (May 21, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The blow up doll can be my co-pilot.



"otto" the auto pilot as made famous in the movie "Airplane".


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 21, 2006)

Hell yeah that movie rocks!


----------



## Florian_at (Jun 7, 2006)

hello all,
I am part of a film crew, doing a documentation about bombings in WW2. We are looking for footage of a B-17 or a B-24. We thought that it should be possible to film a few sequences from a flight simulator, but we lack the experience to determine which simulator would be best. It's all about looking good, perfect graphics, beautiful models, perfect clouds, dropping bombs, sun and lens flare effects...
Maybe you could suggest a few titles?
Regards


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 7, 2006)

Sorry I can not help you, but there are a few gamers around here that might be able to and there are even a few gamer threads here.


----------



## Glider (Jun 7, 2006)

I hate to say this but any simulator could do what you want and am suprised that you have to ask. A more likely question is where to go for the programming. Any manufacturer would be more than happy to help.


----------



## lancasterman (Jul 2, 2006)

for punishment and being able to return it would be the B17 but best all around bomber is the lancaster it out carried and outclassed all other bombers of the time. The B17 and B24 could not match it in bomb carrying ability


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2006)

While I agree with you that between the B-17, B-24, and Lancaster the Lancaster was the best, but you are wrong in saying that the Lancaster outclassed the B-29. The Lancaster was not even in the same boat as the B-29.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 2, 2006)

The Lancaster was the best in it's class, but the B-29 made a new class; the "Super-Heavy" bomber which was above and beyond the Lancaster in every aspect.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2006)

Exactly


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 2, 2006)

Agreed.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 2, 2006)

Another friend for lanc. "lanc II".


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 2, 2006)

Agreed, the Hally drew second with the B-24 in the heavy class IMO


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> Another friend for lanc. "lanc II".



I am sure they will get along very well.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 2, 2006)

Yeah, I can see it now:

- "The British Lanc's better than the Canadian one!"

- "Is not!"

- "Is too!"

- "Is not!"

- "Is too!"

- "You're a moron!"

- "Well you're stupid!"

- "Go to hell!"

- "You first!"

- "I'm gonna kill you! AAAARRRRRGGGHHH!!!"





Well, maybe not quite that bad. 
That'd be kinda funny though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2006)

Oh yeah I live on a farm!

Oh yeah me too!

Lets go shave sheep together!

Yeah!!!!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 2, 2006)

Oh Jesus!


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 2, 2006)

and don't forget about the wand exchange


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 2, 2006)

What? Who's got the biggest Tallboy?


----------



## Erich (Jul 2, 2006)

this may sit quite wrong with out English and Canadian friends but JG 7 vets have said that when they did encounter the Lancs on several 1945 day light missions they were easier to blow away than US bomber types .....

3cm is 3cm, anything it touches starts a fire or is torn apart ..... HEI "M"


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 2, 2006)

Erich said:


> this may sit quite wrong with out English and Canadian friends but JG 7 vets have said that when they did encounter the Lancs on several 1945 day light missions they were easier to blow away than US bomber types .....
> 
> 3cm is 3cm, anything it touches starts a fire or is torn apart ..... HEI "M"


 makes sense to me


----------



## plan_D (Jul 2, 2006)

I find that easy to understand. The Lancaster's defensive armament and armour was inferior to the B-24 and B-17. JG 7 must have thought it a turkey shoot against the Lancaster, but they maybe didn't realise that inside the belly of their target was more than twice as much ordance than the American counter-parts.


----------



## lancasterman (Jul 2, 2006)

Cant really compare the b29 to the lancaster as it was built after the b17 and 24 and lanc and had major leaps in technology.

Erich is correct I spoke with many war vets and they said once the germans went to upward firing cannon there was no chace of not being shot down. stupid really that if they had fitted her with a belly turret operationally, they might have not been the losses incurred.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 2, 2006)

Belly turrets didn't do much to help the B-17's losses, so what makes you think it would've done a thing for the Lancaster?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 2, 2006)

Perhaps he means the tunnel gun setup, instead of a turret.


----------



## lancasterman (Jul 3, 2006)

Losses were high due to there being no way to see an enemy from below. Belly turret would have helped. It was tried early one but dropped in favour of h2s radar


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2006)

lancasterman said:


> Cant really compare the b29 to the lancaster as it was built after the b17 and 24 and lanc and had major leaps in technology.



Not trying to compare to the two. I am just commenting on how you said the Lancaster was better than anything of the time which it was not. The B-29 was.

As I said above I agree with you that the Lancaster was better than the B-17 and the B-24 but it is not the best of the time.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 3, 2006)

The advantage of a belly turret was that that was where the German nightfighters used to attack from. Put a gun there and if it is spotted a few rounds his way would scare him off


----------



## Erich (Jul 3, 2006)

Nightnfighters that flew agasint US heavies in the fall of 43 through spring months of 44 found out the hard way but very quickly, you do NOT attack from underneath. Ludwig Becker one of the prime stars of NJG 1 attacking with his Bf 110G-4 was killed as he tried to attack in an upward fashion, the US bomber belly gunner probably thought..............what the ! ..........and let him have it.

As to JG 7 attacking Lancasters, the Lancs had US and RAF escort and not sure if the RAF fighter escorts knew what they were doing............JG 7 jet pilots didn't care a hoot about what was flying with what arms packages; just bring down the heavy bombers no-matter what ........

E


----------



## plan_D (Jul 3, 2006)

I know that the JG 7 pilots would have not analysed their target, any amount of ordance is bad. But what I'm saying is, the Lancaster may have been easier to bring down but the ordance of one was three times that of a B-17. So, the JG 7 had to bring down three B-17s to stop the ordance coming down on their Fatherland.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 3, 2006)

The US could lose three B17's and still have a pipeline at home to produce several more crews and more planes than they knew what to do with.

The RAF didnt have that luxury.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 3, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The US could lose three B17's and still have a pipeline at home to produce several more crews and more planes than they knew what to do with.
> 
> The RAF didnt have that luxury.


in all reality the RAF/RCAF had an abundance of aircrew as well they began to wind down training in aug of 44due to a surplus of aircrew


----------



## plan_D (Jul 3, 2006)

Lives cost nothing then, syscom? 

And this discussion isn't about the industrial strength and manpower of the U.S. So, why bring it in? The fact of the matter is, the Lancaster was bringing more ordance to target with each plane than either the B-17 and B-24. And that's a fact. Whether or not the U.S had the industrial capacity to lose planes and crew is not a factor.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 3, 2006)

US could put more tons on target because we bombed during the day. Your targets were whole cities. Hard to miss.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 5, 2006)

Syscom, I'm sure you're aware that when the JG 7 intercepted the Lancaster's it was daytime. The RAF didn't only bomb at night, but as you're a well of knowledge you should know that. 

By the way, have you got any proof that the USAAF had a better hit percentage than the RAF? And I assume you realise that the RAF didn't just bomb the cities.


----------



## trackend (Jul 5, 2006)

The B17 was a great plane very robust although sometimes I feel the effectiveness of the armament is over rated (hence the need for P51 escorts) as a bomber however I would go with the Lanc not that it possessed better sights than the Nordon or was stronger etc but it could dump the tonnage which is what a heavy bomber has to do and as D rightly points out night time saturation bombing was not the lancs only use as many of the threads on here verify eg Tirpitz, U-boat pens, bridges, etc.ect


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 5, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Syscom, I'm sure you're aware that when the JG 7 intercepted the Lancaster's it was daytime. The RAF didn't only bomb at night, but as you're a well of knowledge you should know that.
> 
> By the way, have you got any proof that the USAAF had a better hit percentage than the RAF? And I assume you realise that the RAF didn't just bomb the cities.



Actually the RAF had a better percentage of bombs on target.

The US was trying to do precision bombing while you guys were flattening cities. I guess if the 8th and 15th tried to do the same thing as area bombing then the percentages would go way up.

By the way, how many daylight raids did the RAF do on Berlin or the refinery complex's in SE Germany in 1944?


----------



## Hop (Jul 5, 2006)

> The US was trying to do precision bombing while you guys were flattening cities.



And the RAF was doing precision bombing whilst the USAAF was flattening cities.

What most people don't recognise is that the RAF did a lot of precision bombing in 1944 and 1945, in fact only about a third of their bombing was aimed at German cities, the rest at precision targets. (Bomber Command dropped more tons of bombs on oil targets than the 8th AF, for example, although when the USAAF forces in the Med are included, the combined force dropped more on oil than BC)

And the USAAF did it's share of area bombing in Europe. At first they admitted to it, the orders giving targets like "Duren, center of city". Later they tried to disguise the nature of their area bombing, but continued carrying out area raids, dumping large numbers of incendiaries on the centres of German cities using radar aiming.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 5, 2006)

Hop said:


> And the RAF was doing precision bombing whilst the USAAF was flattening cities.
> 
> What most people don't recognise is that the RAF did a lot of precision bombing in 1944 and 1945, in fact only about a third of their bombing was aimed at German cities, the rest at precision targets. (Bomber Command dropped more tons of bombs on oil targets than the 8th AF, for example, although when the USAAF forces in the Med are included, the combined force dropped more on oil than BC)
> 
> And the USAAF did it's share of area bombing in Europe. At first they admitted to it, the orders giving targets like "Duren, center of city". Later they tried to disguise the nature of their area bombing, but continued carrying out area raids, dumping large numbers of incendiaries on the centres of German cities using radar aiming.



True, but there also were many targets that the AAF struck that were not in urban area's.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 5, 2006)

The USAAF did attack precision targets, we all know that. I find it a shame that you attempted to claim that Bomber Command solely attacked the city centers.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 5, 2006)

Area bombing (especially at night) was a tactic invented by and used with considerable frequency by Bomber Command.

I dont find it a shame at all. In fact I think it was appropriate all things considered.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 5, 2006)

Approriate that you claimed Bomber Command only did 'area bombing' while the USAAF only did 'precision bombing'? In which you were wrong on both accounts. 

Out of a mention of the Lancaster being able to bring more ordance to target than a B-17. You've attempted to hold up the U.S by saying it had the industrial capacity to replace the B-17s lost, which had nothing to do with my comment. Claimed the USAAF put more bombs on target, because they bombed by day while implying that Bomber Command only bombed by night and only bombed cities. But then back tracked and stated that the RAF had a better hit percentage. Then implied that the U.S didn't do 'area bombing', which was then corrected by Hop. To which you quickly "recovered" by stating that the U.S didn't just bomb urban areas, which we all know. 

All this because I stated that the Lancaster could bring more ordance to target. You've had to be proven wrong several times, even by yourself, just because you've tried to hold up the U.S in a higher light.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 5, 2006)

Lets phrase it this way.

The 8th and 15th bombed by day at smaller targets. And it was exclusively during the day.

The RAF frequently bombed large cities. And from mid 1943 onwards, most of the sorties were at night.

Now the key is, if the target is a whole city, then how could you miss. If the target is an itarget away from a city, then hitting the target is tougher. So bombs on small targets is what counts.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 5, 2006)

The USAAF did 'area bombing' just as the RAF did. The RAF did 'precision bombing' just as the USAAF did. And all your attempts on making the USAAF out to be more important than the RAF, still doesn't change the fact that the Lancaster brought more ordnance to target. 

It also doesn't change the fact that Bomber Command dropped more tonnage on oil facilities than the U.S 8th Air Force. They're quite precision.


----------



## Erich (Jul 5, 2006)

do not forget large cities such as Berlin, Essen, Würzburg, Nürnberg and do I say it ? .............. Dresden and others. Both the US/RAF plastered these cities in an all out attempt to destroy industry as well as civilian population centres, it was inevitable


----------



## Hop (Jul 6, 2006)

> Area bombing (especially at night) was a tactic invented by and used with considerable frequency by Bomber Command.



Bomber Command copied the tactic from the Luftwaffe, who invented it. They pioneered all the techniques the RAF adopted, radio navigation beams to guide pathfinders to the target, pathfinders dropping incendiaires to mark the target, the main force bombers dropping large numbers of blast bombs and incendiaries.



> The 8th and 15th bombed by day at smaller targets.



And they also bombed larger targets by day.



> The RAF frequently bombed large cities.



And they also bombed smaller targets.

It's equally valid to say "The RAF bombed lots of precise military targets in Europe, the USAAF frequently area bombed German cities".

That's as valid as what you are claiming, but like your claims, gives a distorted picture.



> Now the key is, if the target is a whole city, then how could you miss. If the target is an itarget away from a city, then hitting the target is tougher. So bombs on small targets is what counts.



If this is just a way of comparing accuracy, the USSBS gave a good example, attacks on 3 large German oil refineries, totaling 30,000 tons (ie a fair sized sample)

The USAAF achieved very good results in perfect weather, getting just over 25% of it's bombs inside the plant fences, iirc. However, that dropped to less than 10% using radar bombing methods when weather or smoke obscured the targets.

The RAF, bombing at night, averaged over 15% of their bombs inside the plant fences.

The average for both the USAAF and RAF was 12.8%, ie the USAAF average was considerably lower than the RAF average. And that's using precisely the same measure of accuracy.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2006)

Intersting stuff. I had never seen figures on percentages of bombs. Where did you find that info at?


----------



## Hop (Jul 6, 2006)

It's part of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey, second report. Sadly only the first, much shorter, report is fully available online. It's only a summary, and published in Sept 1945, so doesn't have much detail.

The page with the sample of the 3 refineries I quoted above is online:
U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey: Oil Division Final Report

Some of the rest of the report is there as well, but some of the links aren't working.

The figures I quoted above were slightly out, as I was working from memory. The full table is:

Air Force - Percentage of Hits Within the Plants
8th AF visual aiming	26.8
8th AF, part visual aiming and part instrument	12.4
8th AF, full instrument	5.4
RAF, night Pathfinder technique	15.8
Weighted average	12.6

As you can see, the RAF average was well above the overall average, which means the USAAF average must have been below the overall figure, possibly as low as single digits.

This is only a sample, of course, but it's a fairly large sample, and one chosen by the USSBS team themselves.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2006)

Cool thanks for the link.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 6, 2006)

I read this in link

"Unexploded Bombs Mean Wasted Missions
Unexploded bombs bespeak wasted missions and lives of fliers risked in vain. In two plants surveyed, unexploded bombs amounted to 24 and 31 percent of those landing within the fence lines. The average for 13 plants was 16 percent (see Table 46). A study of unexploded bombs found throughout Germany indicated that frequently the bombs had landed flat because the tail fins had become detached or had broken off during descent; other bombs still had the arming wires intact in their fuzes when they were found; in others the fuzes had broken off. *Seven 500-lb bombs dropped in a single raid struck the reactor house of the Fischer-Tropsch plant at Castrop-Rauxel, a sufficient number to have demolished it completely. None of them detonated,*and the reactor house was intact on V-E Day."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2006)

That means 24 to 31 percent of the ones that landed in the fences did not detonate, not 24 to 31 percent additional ones did not detonate on top of the ones that did.

They are actually still finding them all over Germany even today! When I was in Highschool they were building the post clinic next to our school and they had to evacuate us because they found a couple of unexploded bombs from WW2.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 6, 2006)

I was reading more in the reports.

It said that the larger RAF bombs were needed to destroy the heavy eqmt. The US 1000 pounders couldnt do the job. 

It also said that the destruction of the utlities surrounding the plants were a major cause of production disruption. Repairable, but damage non the less.

If I planned a raid, I would send in the RAF with the heavy bombs to target the plant, and then the B17's and -24's to plaster the area to damage the pipes and cabling.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2006)

I agree with that, with how you would plan that I think. That report is really interesting actually.


----------



## Glider (Jul 6, 2006)

Dare I say give the USAAF Halifax's and Lancs so they can carry the bombs that do the damage


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 6, 2006)

Glider said:


> Dare I say give the USAAF Halifax's and Lancs so they can carry the bombs that do the damage



Actually no, because the flak at these sites was bad enough at 30,000 feet and would be undoubtably worse at the middle altitudes the Lanc and Hali's would need to fly at.

Plus, at least the fighters had a chance to attack the Luftwaffe when they came up to defend these high value targets.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 7, 2006)

617 Sqdn. proved that 'normal' munitions of the day were inadequete for a lot of jobs. On 22 March, 1945, they attacked Nienburg Bridge with four Lancasters (one with a 'Grand Slam') and destroyed the bridge. A raid on the same day with 102 aircraft of No.5 Group attacked the Bremen bridges, and their 'normal' bombs had no effect. The Bremen railway bridge was then attacked by 617 Sqdn. the next day and destroyed. 

No need for the USAAF on the attack. Just use 617 Sqdn. to attack the plant and another squadron to attack it's surroundings. The 'Grand Slams' and 'Tallboys' wouldn't all be a direct hit and would shatter the foundations of the area, while the hits would collapse the plant. 
Or you could just raid the area with a mix of Lancaster's carrying 'block busters' and 1,000 lb GP bombs. 

It seems to me that the smaller Lancaster raids seem to be written off by people as one-offs to the Lancaster's ability as a bomber. Many raids consisted of less than twenty bombers all in broad daylight, which often achieved success. And not all in a time when air superiority had been achieved. 

17th April, 1942, twelve Lancasters take off at 1400 from RAF Woodhall Spa and RAF Waddington to attack the MAN Diesel Engine factory at Augsburg in Bavaria, Germany. The target was one building the sized of a football ('soccer') pitch. Four were lost to fighters 300 miles from target, two were lost over target and another went down from damage. Each bomber carried four 1,000 lbs GP bombs 
Over target, the Lancasters left had 24 bombs to drop on target. 17 went straight into the plant, but only 12 exploded. The plant had suffered severe damage.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 7, 2006)

In March 1945, the Luftwaffe didnt exist. In 1942, the Luftwaffe was quite dangerous but hardly at the level that existed throughout 1943 and most of 1944.

Point is, the Lancaster performed admirably as a night time bomber, but would have been severly mauled by any type of sustained daylight raids deep into Germany, in 1943 and 1944.

Now reading about the results of using bombs of greater than 4000 lbs, this is definatley an advantage that the Lanc had over the -17 and -24.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 7, 2006)

Any unescorted bomber would have been mincemeat against the Luftwaffe in 1942 with the exceptions of the B-29 (too heavily armed) and the Mossie (too fast and high for them)


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 7, 2006)

mosquitoman said:


> Any unescorted bomber would have been mincemeat against the Luftwaffe in 1942 with the exceptions of the B-29 (too heavily armed) and the Mossie (too fast and high for them)



B29's werent flying yet.

And the Mosquito's werent what you would call a heavy bomber


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 7, 2006)

I said bomber, not heavy bomber and I was talking about ANY WW2 bomber


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 7, 2006)

Besides, A Mossie could take the same as a B17


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 7, 2006)

mosquitoman said:


> Besides, A Mossie could take the same as a B17



Take the same what? Payload vs range? Punishment? Defensive armourment?

The Mossie isnt a strategic bomber anymore than the B17 a speedy attack bomber.


----------



## Glider (Jul 7, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Actually no, because the flak at these sites was bad enough at 30,000 feet and would be undoubtably worse at the middle altitudes the Lanc and Hali's would need to fly at.
> 
> Plus, at least the fighters had a chance to attack the Luftwaffe when they came up to defend these high value targets.



If I read the article correctly, You can use the B17/B24 to carry a fraction of the bombs that will miss more frequently than the RAF and those that hit, do little lasting damage. As a result you have to go back again

or 

Use the Lanc and the Halifax to carry more bombs that are more accurate and wipe the target out.

I will take the second option. 

Remember that earlier in the thread it was noted that the loss ratio of the B24 and Lanc in daylight raids was as close to identical as you were going to get. So the difference to AA fire was minimal at best.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 7, 2006)

Read it again. 

On the occasions the bombardiers had visual sighting, the accuracy went up to 25%.

There are other numerous incidents cited in the survey where production was disrupted by damage to the power, water and sewer systems surrounding the plants. In this case, if the RAF hit a key piece of machinery with one of the big bombs, then that component was destroyed and out of commision for quite some time. But if the 8th/15th AF didnt destroy the eqmt even with direct hits, then there still would have been interuptions in production from one reason or another.

It looks like that most of the refineries were out of commision for extended (multi-week) periods in only a few instances.

After reading a lot of the survey, I'm of the opinion if the RAF and AAF went to bombing the oil plants early in 1944 rather than waste time bombing the aircraft plants and airfields, then the German economy might have collapsed even sooner.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Read it again.
> 
> On the occasions the bombardiers had visual sighting, the accuracy went up to 25%.
> 
> ...


Weather.............


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 7, 2006)

Weather what?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Weather what?



The winters of 1943-44 and 44-45 were brutal - there was discussion about this last year. Someone pointed out that the bombing of oil refineries seemed to be sparatic during the winter months and almost came to a stop in Dec. 1944 into Jan, 1945. That winter was one of the most severe winters to that date and I would bet dollars to donuts that this was al least half the reason why it seems refineries were not consistantly bombed during this period....


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 7, 2006)

There were plenty of bomber missions in early 1944 (Feb 1944 - April 1944). I say that instead of hitting the airfields and Berlin, start a concerted bombing campaign against the refineries.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> There were plenty of bomber missions in early 1944 (Feb 1944 - April 1944). I say that instead of hitting the airfields and Berlin, start a concerted bombing campaign against the refineries.


I think the 8AF brass thought it was more important to take the Luftwafle out so the bombers could strike with little interference.....

Berlin was more a propaganda thing.....

Feb/ March 1944 the weather started clearing. Dec - Feb., 1945 the weather was horrible and mission days averages were about half of what they were during the spring and summer months. I think by the time the 8AF figured out the importance of taking out the refineries, it was the winter months....


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 7, 2006)

It looks like the refinery offensive began in earnest in May and June 1944.

As for the target selection for earlier in the year, Im surprised noone in the "target selection commitee" pushed for hitting the refineries early on and the frequently. It didnt take to much imagination to see the impact to the economy.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> It looks like the refinery offensive began in earnest in May and June 1944.


 and it just about came to a halt later in the year


syscom3 said:


> As for the target selection for earlier in the year, Im surprised noone in the "target selection commitee" pushed for hitting the refineries early on and the frequently. It didnt take to much imagination to see the impact to the economy.


 Doolittle didn't have an imgaination for stuff like that!


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 7, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Doolittle didn't have an imgaination for stuff like that!



Because he was busy figuring out how to make the B25's carrier capable?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Because he was busy figuring out how to make the B25's carrier capable?


----------



## Glider (Jul 7, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I was reading more in the reports.
> 
> It said that the larger RAF bombs were needed to destroy the heavy eqmt. The US 1000 pounders couldnt do the job.
> 
> ...



As I said, I agree with you. You can drop the 1000lb bombs from a B17/B24 and go back again. Or a 4000lb and knock it out.
Also worth remembering that the Halifax and Lanc could also carry a number of 1000lb bombs with the 4000lb to distrupt all the support utilities at the same time.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 7, 2006)

I'd want the Lancs and Hali's to carry the heaviest bombs possible and not worry about the small bombs. Let the AAF carry the smaller bombs dropped all over the place to disrupt the utilities.

If 500-600 Lancs all carried 4000LBs bombs (or even heavier) and dropped them on a refinery complex, that would do the trick in messing something up permanently. Anything the AAF added afterwards is for a bonus.


----------



## Erich (Jul 7, 2006)

it would be nice if our two US air vets could read this and make comment..........b-17sam and jhor


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 7, 2006)

Erich said:


> it would be nice if our two US air vets could read this and make comment..........b-17sam and jhor



Yes it would.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 13, 2006)

why not just send all lancs? it cuts out the lack of communication between the forces issue and the lancs could carry 8,000lbers plus the 1,000lbers you want, what's the sence in sending the extra american bombers?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 13, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> why not just send all lancs? it cuts out the lack of communication between the forces issue and the lancs could carry 8,000lbers plus the 1,000lbers you want, what's the sence in sending the extra american bombers?


A number of reasons....

1. Crew rest if it's a continual campaign
2. Enhanced availability of mission capable aircraft
3. Continual aircraft over target
4. Split tactics


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2006)

How about this. Forget the B-17s, forget the Lancasters, forget the B-24s. Just send B-29s for the day and the night bombing. It would do the job better and more efficient than any of the 3 mentioned here.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 13, 2006)

good idea for 44 and 45, not so good an idea for 42 and 43


----------



## Hop (Jul 13, 2006)

> How about this. Forget the B-17s, forget the Lancasters, forget the B-24s. Just send B-29s for the day and the night bombing. It would do the job better and more efficient than any of the 3 mentioned here.



I'm not sure about the more efficient part. 

The price the US government paid for a B-17 in 1944 was $204,000. The B-24 cost $214,000. The Lancaster cost the British government about $140,000 each. 

The B-29 cost over $600,000 each.

With more than 4 Lancasters for the price of a B-29, (and lower fuel costs too) the B-29 would have to drop a lot more bombs to be as efficient as the Lanc.

The bombers built for Bomber Command cost about £1.3 billion, roughly half the total cost of the entire BC offensive (bombs, crew, fuel etc).

So if you replaced just the heavy bombers in BC with B-29s, the cost of BC would go from £2.7 billion to £4.4 billion, even assuming operating costs were not higher.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 13, 2006)

The B29 was far more capable than the Lanc and its foolish to even think the Lanc could have performed the same role's. The -29 flew further, had a higher payload, could carry atomic weapons, was better defended and had a far higher ceiling.

There is absolutley no way Lancs based 1600 miles from Japan could begin to mount a bombing campaign that ammounted to anything.

You're mixing apples and oranges here. The B29 was a generational leap over the Lanc/B17/B24.


----------



## Hop (Jul 13, 2006)

> The B29 was far more capable than the Lanc and its foolish to even think the Lanc could have performed the same role's.



Certainly. The question was about sending the B-29 on the jobs the Lancaster did in Germany, and that doesn't really make economic sense.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2006)

Hop said:


> I'm not sure about the more efficient part.
> 
> The price the US government paid for a B-17 in 1944 was $204,000. The B-24 cost $214,000. The Lancaster cost the British government about $140,000 each.
> 
> ...



We are looking at this differently here. 1 B-29 could do the job of more more than 4 of those B-24s so yes it was more efficient. Wouldn't you want to have the bomber with the most capability and the best chances of coming home alive. In the end the B-29 would have dropped more tonnage and accomplished the job better.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 14, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The B29 was far more capable than the Lanc and its foolish to even think the Lanc could have performed the same role's. The -29 flew further, had a higher payload, could carry atomic weapons, was better defended and had a far higher ceiling.
> 
> There is absolutley no way Lancs based 1600 miles from Japan could begin to mount a bombing campaign that ammounted to anything.
> 
> You're mixing apples and oranges here. The B29 was a generational leap over the Lanc/B17/B24.



that was never in doubt, nor is the fact that the lanc is the best of the lanc/B-24/B-17 trio 

however could one B-29 do the job of 4 lancs over Europe? of course not, however there would be large formations of either craft, whichever way you look at it, lancs or B-29s the plant will get destroyed does it matter what by?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2006)

1 B-29 was more capable than atleast 2 to 3 Lancasters. We are not talking about just tonnage carried, we are talking overall capability. The B-29 was years ahead of the Lancaster.

To do the same job as the Lancaster you would need only maybe 2/3 of B-29s.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 15, 2006)

From an economic point of view, the Lancaster was a more efficient aircraft than the B-29. Hop mentioned that four Lancasters could be deployed for one B-29, this means the B-29 had to be able to deliver the same tonnage as four Lancasters. Or a formation of B-29s had to deliver the same tonnage as a formation four times as large made up of Lancasters to be as efficient. 

On an attack of one oil station, the RAF just had to send Lancasters with 'blockbusters' and 1,000 lbs GP bombs. Which the Lancasters could all carry. There is no need for the USAAF on the raid.


----------



## Hop (Jul 15, 2006)

> We are not talking about just tonnage carried, we are talking overall capability. The B-29 was years ahead of the Lancaster.



Certainly against Japan, but I don't think there would be much difference against Germany.

The B-29 had a higher ceiling, but experience showed they had to bomb from much lower altitudes for any accuracy.

The Lancaster carried an average load of just over 10,000 lbs in Europe. The B-29 might better that by a little, but not a huge amount (and will burn more fuel doing so).

The better defences of the B-29 will make little difference at night.

In all, the B-29 isn't going to be a huge advance over the Lancaster in Europe, because its two biggest advantages, range and ceiling, are not really applicable in Europe.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 16, 2006)

it also depends how should be used, obviously by day the B-29's the obvios choice, at night there's not much to call it due to the fact the lanc was designed for that enviroment, had better electronic equiptment and the armament would suffer just as much as the lanc's as spotting the enemy is the hardest part of defending yourself at night, i know the B-29 was used in the pacific at night but over Europe they'd proberly still want to use huge close formations! which the RAF could've told them aint gonna work.......


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 17, 2006)

Lanc, the B29 had all the offensive and defensive avionics systems that were state of the art at the time. There is nothing the Lanc had the the B29 didnt have.

It was the culmination in all the experience the allies had in strategic bombing.

By the way, the B29 could carry any bomb the Lanc had. Maybe even more. The -29's payload capacity was huge on shorter range missions.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 17, 2006)

we're not debating the payload abilities of one lanc compared to one B-29 but one B-29 against 4 lancs.........

and you cannot seriously claim the B-29 was fitted with the same ability to fight at night as the lanc! you claim she was state of the art what navigation systems did she have? other than it being centrally controlled what about the B-29's defensive guns allowed it to be that successful at night? could the cameras used work as well by night? what formations would be used at night? what about defensive manouvers? you cannot simply rely on guns by night, most of the time night fighters would break off their attack if they knew the rear gunner had spotted them and move on to annother target, you can forget the collective security idea of the other aircraft's guns defending you by night you're on your own, what was it made the B-29 able to fight at night? the B-29 may've been the culmination of the USAAF's daylight bombing during the war, the late war lancaster was the culmination of all the RAF's night bombing and we'd been bombing by night when you guys were still on the fence, i'd say there's plenty the lanc had the B-29 didn't.........

i wanna get this straight i'm not arguing about the lanc being better than the B-29, i know the B-29 was the best strategic bomber of the war, however i will argue that the lanc was better at night and was the best over Europe.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 17, 2006)

I disagree Lanc and Hop. The B-29 could carry quite a bit more payload over the same range the Lanc could. Not just a little like Hop seems to suggest.

Lanc as for the Electronics. The B-29s electronics, navigation, bomb aiming, and avionics were the most superior and advnaced to see service in WW2. You have to remember look at when the B-29 was designed and built and look at when the Lancaster was?

As for the economical role. Using less aircraft to do the same job is more economical than using more aircraft to do the same job. Less B-29 could do the same job as the Lancaster, B-17, and B-24. Simple as that.

You put 4 crews up you are risking 4 crews. You put 1 crew up you are risking 1 crew...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 17, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> and you cannot seriously claim the B-29 was fitted with the same ability to fight at night as the lanc!



Ummm how about this for you:

_It was designed as a high-altitude daytime bomber, *but flew more low-altitude nighttime incendiary bombing missions.* It was the primary aircraft in the U.S. firebombing campaign against Japan in the final months of World War II,_

B-29 Superfortress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 17, 2006)

i'm well aware of her night bombing missions, but over Europe it would be very different when they actually go up against proper night opposition...........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 17, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> i'm well aware of her night bombing missions, but over Europe it would be very different when they actually go up against proper night opposition...........


Firebombing at night was extremely treacherous and dangerous, not only from their enemy but from the raging updrafts created by the fires and believe in some situations the B-29s were as low as 6,000 feet. The they had to fly back hundreds of miles over the Pacific to return to their bases fighting the jet stream and tropical weather conditions.

I don't know, If I'd had a choice I think i might consider taking the German flak!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 17, 2006)

And with the choice I would take the B-29 over Germany as well, day and night.

The technology to operate those gun systems at night was available to the US by 1944.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 18, 2006)

i still believe the lanc was more capable by night, not only does she have a greater record by night but what navigational aids did the B-29 carry? what radars? could she be fitted with more radars? what did she have to counter night defenses? what formations would they have flown? what, other than guns, could she use to shake off a defending fighter? did the yanks have any real dedicated support groups for night time operations? any night fighters for support? the lanc had all of these.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 18, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> i still believe the lanc was more capable by night, not only does she have a greater record by night but what navigational aids did the B-29 carry? what radars? could she be fitted with more radars? what did she have to counter night defenses? what formations would they have flown? what, other than guns, could she use to shake off a defending fighter? did the yanks have any real dedicated support groups for night time operations? any night fighters for support? the lanc had all of these.........


Yes, all the above and then some....


"The early models of the B-29 carried the Philco AN/APN-4 Loran (LOng RANge) constant-beam navigation aid. It was replaced by the more sophisticated RCA AN/APN-9 system later in World War II. 

The B-29 carried an AN/APQ-13 radar bombing/navigational aid set. This set was developed jointly by the Bell Telephone Laboratories and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Radiation Laboratory. It was manufactured by Western Electric, which was in those days the manufacturing arm of the Bell System. The radar antenna for this unit was housed inside a retractable 30-inch hemispherical radome located between the bomb bays and protruding below the fuselage a couple of feet when extended. Later in the war, the AN/APQ-7 Eagle radar unit was used. The Eagle antenna was mounted in a wing-shaped housing installed underneath the forward section of the fuselage. The unit was also devised by Bell Labs and MIT, and was manufactured by Western Electric." 

"Other equipment included a liaison set, radio compass, marker beacon, glide path receiver, localizer receiver, IFF (identification friend or foe) transformer, emergency rescue transmitter, blind bombing radar (on many aircraft), radio countermeasures, and static dischargers" 

And she was fitted with more stuff during the Korean War...

And the B-29s firebombing Japan flew low in standard formation, and only carried a tail gunner. They had no night fighters to escort them so they were on their own, at the same time the Japanese had little to counter the raids in terms of radar equipped night fighters.

The raids were well over 1,500 miles, most of that distance over the Pacific.

Bottom line the B-29 was way more advanced than the Lancaster in all areas including avionics and electronic equipment. Although the Lanc did her share over Europe, the -29 was just as effective at night while flying twice the distances that the Lanc had to fly to bomb Germany.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 18, 2006)

Good post FBJ. I was looking for that material as well. Pretty much sums it up right there.

Ofcourse Lanc will be as stubborn about the Lancaster as syscom is about the B-24.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 18, 2006)

would you expect anything less  

how successful was this equiptment? because the fact remains the lancaster still has the better record by night, she had been developed for the role over a number of years and was the sum of everthing they'd learnt about bombing at night, all eqiptment was tried and tested against one hell of an enemy, we had tactics and experience, how would close formations have worked against an efficient deadly enemy, not just the japs, they wouldn't have, and just think of the form up! over the pacific you could formate and climb on the way, in Europe you'd need to form up over the north sea not only would this take a lot of time but would give jerry a lot of warning, this electronics equiptment, once jerry got his hands on it and developed a countering system could the B-29 be updated accordingly? the way the electronics war was you'd constantly need to change and adjust


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 18, 2006)

The Lancaster was used more at night and had the record to prove it, no doubting that. The -29 whilst not sporting the track record of the Lanc at night was still the superior aircraft, night or day...

To say "just form up over the Pacific" is easier said than done. Over the ocean on night with little or no moon you have no horizon and would basically do any form up blind and on instruments. Then to cross 1500 miles with little or no ground references, and to fight the jet stream (something that wasn't a problem in Europe) and other weather made the job to get there treacherous in it self. To even try to compare the two night bombings techniques are like comparing apples and oranges because there were different dangers in each theater of operation. Over Germany you had more accurate flak and night fighters, over Japan you had some fighters where a percentage would ram you on purpose (Kamikazes) but still not as effective. The biggest danger for B-29 crews was the elements and the shark infested waters of the Pacific.

Bottom line is the B-29 was superior aircraft no matter how you mix it....


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 18, 2006)

How can anyone argue that the Lancaster was better than the B-29 in any role? The fact that the Lancaster had a better track record in night bombing is a little misleading.

For example, the Hellcat had a better track record than the Corsair as a carrier capable fighter. No one in their right mind would argue that the Hellcat was a better carrier fighter than the Corsair though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 19, 2006)

i can argue because the lancaster was a purpose build night bomber that was the culmination of all the RAF's experience in night bombing, which we were doing whilst america was still screaming isolation, we had the tactics, weapons, support, experience, knowledge and electronics for night bombing, the B-29 was the culmination of the USAAF's day bombing, and i agree she was the finest bomber of the war, however in the night time role role she was little changed from her day time tole and faced an enemy that made navigation the B-29's biggest problem, what does that say about them? let's not kid ourselves by night the japs weren't a threat, and just how many Kamikazes were out at night?

if navigation is the biggest problem surely this navigation system wasn't up to the job? the night war over europe required lanc crews to be alert from the time they take off, knowing the enemy is 100 miles away and they could get intercepted at any point by experienced night fighters, to help this the lancs carry a range of electronics equiptment not only for navigation but for bombing, countering night fighters and countering ground radars, if they were intercepted they had systems developed for defence, tactics worked out and they often worked, some times they didn't, not only did the B-29s have nothing to counter RADARs leaving them open to interception but i doubt they had the experience to counter night fighters, as the RAF showed you cannot depend on defensive guns and you most cirtainly can't use big formations.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2006)

Lanc sorry but the B-29 had more sophisticated systems for navigation, bombing, night bombing what ever. Do you think the US took technology that was older than the Lancasters and put it in a new bomber.

Think what you are saying.

Here we go I will do a comparison for you based off of your argument which holds no weight at all.

Lanc Based off of what you just said about the better track record of the Lancaster that means the B-17 had a better track record in day bombing than the Lancaster did. Therefore the B-17 was a better bomber than the Lancaster.

Its true Lanc because I used the same comparison as you did! It has to be true. Has to be!

The Lancaster was a purpose built night bomber. The B-29 was a purpose built day/night bomber that was superior to the Lancaster in all aspects, not matter what your delerious mind thinks and how patriotic you are.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 19, 2006)

comparing the records of the B-17 and B-29 is just stupid, the B-17 didn't have the same record as the B-29 by night and was in a completely different league to the B-29, now, all you guys've said so far is that the B-29's so sophisticated and FB's said she had a navigation system, give better information as to exactily what it was the B-29 had that made it so very capable at night, how would she counter night fighters? what formations would she use? how could she avoid detection, and yes, i do think the Americans would put "older" systems in, they wouldn't actually be older but the British has the superior electronics equiptment, give me this kinda of information and i'll considder yeilding


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> the B-29 was the culmination of the USAAF's day bombing, and i agree she was the finest bomber of the war, however in the night time role role she was little changed from her day time tole and faced an enemy that made navigation the B-29's biggest problem, what does that say about them? let's not kid ourselves by night the japs weren't a threat, and just how many Kamikazes were out at night?


Japanese night fighters were a threat, but not in great numbers. The B-29 was a culmination of bombing PERIOD! Day or night and eventually all weather.


the lancaster kicks *** said:


> if navigation is the biggest problem surely this navigation system wasn't up to the job?


It was state of the art for its day, just not fool proof. Dispite things like LF beams and radar, most naviation was sill done by Dead Reconing (The same holds for the RAF). 


the lancaster kicks *** said:


> the night war over europe required lanc crews to be alert from the time they take off, knowing the enemy is 100 miles away and they could get intercepted at any point by experienced night fighters, to help this the lancs carry a range of electronics equiptment not only for navigation but for bombing, countering night fighters and countering ground radars, if they were intercepted they had systems developed for defence, tactics worked out and they often worked, some times they didn't,


And that was the situation of the ETO


the lancaster kicks *** said:


> not only did the B-29s have nothing to counter RADARs leaving them open to interception but i doubt they had the experience to counter night fighters,


Wrong - look at the specs shown above - B-29s were equipped with jamming devices and chafe. 

Bottome line Lanc, there is no argument of the better bomber, day, night, bad bad weather, the B-29 has it hands down - BTW during the Korean War the B-29 was primarily used at night because of the MIG threat. It was the backbone of early SAC after the war and the fact that the RAF used it for a while proves it was probably the best bomber of its day...


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 19, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Bottome line Lanc, there is no argument of the better bomber, day, night, bad bad weather, the B-29 has it hands down - BTW during the Korean War the B-29 was primarily used at night because of the MIG threat. It was the backbone of early SAC after the war and the fact that the RAF used it for a while proves it was probably the best bomber of its day...



Agreed Joe, however much I like the Lancaster the B-29 is superior in all areas and capability, I would rather have a squadron of B-29's than one of Lancaster's...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 19, 2006)

Have you got any information on the B-29s jamming equipment, Joe?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 19, 2006)

Lanc, dont forget the RAF and 8th AF were using radio navigation transmissions from stations in the UK.

In the PTO, there were none.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2006)

"The crew of the B-29 was typically eleven, comprising pilot, copilot, bombardier, navigator, flight engineer, radio operator, radar operator, central fire control gunner, left side gunner, right side gunner and tail gunner. The first six crewmen were housed in the forward pressurized cabin. The next four were housed in the rear pressurized cabin. The tail gunner was in a separate pressurized compartment in the tail. Later in the war, the crew size was occasionally increased to 13 with the addition of two radar/radio operators to man the radar and electronic countermeasures equipment. 

Fuel was carried in fourteen outer-wing, eight inner-wing, and four bomb bay tanks, giving a maximum capacity of 8168 US gallons. An early modification added four tanks in the wing center section, bringing total fuel capacity to 9438 US gallons. 

The early models of the B-29 carried the Philco AN/APN-4 Loran (LOng RANge) constant-beam navigation aid. It was replaced by the more sophisticated RCA AN/APN-9 system later in World War II. 

The B-29 carried an AN/APQ-13 radar bombing/navigational aid set. This set was developed jointly by the Bell Telephone Laboratories and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Radiation Laboratory. It was manufactured by Western Electric, which was in those days the manufacturing arm of the Bell System. The radar antenna for this unit was housed inside a retractable 30-inch hemispherical radome located between the bomb bays and protruding below the fuselage a couple of feet when extended. Later in the war, the AN/APQ-7 Eagle radar unit was used. The Eagle antenna was mounted in a wing-shaped housing installed underneath the forward section of the fuselage. The unit was also devised by Bell Labs and MIT, and was manufactured by Western Electric."

Here's some other information. It involves the Enola Gay but provides information on some of the other B-29 electronic equipment. I think Dave in VA may have some info on this as well.

Countermeasures Position
Starboard side antenna descriptions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> comparing the records of the B-17 and B-29 is just stupid, the B-17 didn't have the same record as the B-29 by night and was in a completely different league to the B-29, now, all you guys've said so far is that the B-29's so sophisticated and FB's said she had a navigation system, give better information as to exactily what it was the B-29 had that made it so very capable at night, how would she counter night fighters? what formations would she use? how could she avoid detection, and yes, i do think the Americans would put "older" systems in, they wouldn't actually be older but the British has the superior electronics equiptment, give me this kinda of information and i'll considder yeilding



Im not comparing the B-17 to the B-29. I was comparing the B-17 to the Lancaster in day bombing. With your logic of an arguement the B-17 was a better bomber because it had a better day bombing recored than the Lancaster.

What I am telling you is this. You can not base it off of an aircrafts record. The fact is this no matter how you look at it. The B-29 was a better night bomber than the Lancaster. I am sure FBJ will tell you how much more sophisticated the B-29s equipment was, but you still will not yield because you have tunnel vision....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 20, 2006)

i do not  but having read FB's information there, whilst very interesting and learning a lot from it, it does still seem to just talk about a set that scans radio frequencies? and essentially the APA-11 to moniter RaDAR transmissions, obviously it does mention other countermeasures but nothing more than literally mentioning them, not mind blowing stuff i mean heck even the lancs and some mossies carried a bombing/navigation radar, if, like pD we could hear a bit more about these other countermeasures and how sucessful they were, and a little more about the tactics use by them at night i'll yeild..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2006)

Okay how about this. Since you are the only one that does not understand the fact that the B-29 was a better bomber in all aspects and all rolls, you have to prove how they are better than the B-29s avionix. You have to prove to all of us. We dont have to prove anything to you because we know the facts.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 20, 2006)

I posted some info on the formations the -29's flew on my "All Things B29" thread.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2006)

Cool will check it out.

I am interested in Lancs response here...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2006)

The APA-11 showed if the aircraft was being picked up on radar, I believe this stuff actually did the "jamming."

"The other pieces of equipment seen above are (from top left to right) an AN/APA-11 pulse analyzer, AN/APA-10 panoramic adapter, and an AN/ARR-7 receiver. The panoramic adapter visually displayed a continuous band of frequencies to the left and right of the frequency actually being listened to on any of the three receivers in this bay of equipment. The pulse analyzer was a specialized instrument that permitted detailed characterization of electronic radar signatures." 

Although RAF aircraft carried similar equipment, for the most part it was first generation ECM that was designed for operation in the ETO. The Equipment found on the B-29 was the next step and was for use in any part of the world. Some of this same equipment was used on later aircraft and into the Korean War.

Here's more of WW2 ECM systems....

Surveillance bay


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2006)

Good info and thanks for the link.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 21, 2006)

yeah it was an interesting read (although i still wish you guys would give things names instead of letters and numbers it's easy to get lost!) but yes having read fb's information and links the B-29 certainly did carry a lot of kit, and, whilst her cammo was not as good as the RAF's night cammo (well i wasn't gonna make this all one way) i must now conceed to fb's arguments, the B-29 was the superior night bomber, there, now go enjoy a celebratory bud


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> yeah it was an interesting read (although i still wish you guys would give things names instead of letters and numbers it's easy to get lost!) but yes having read fb's information and links the B-29 certainly did carry a lot of kit, and, whilst her cammo was not as good as the RAF's night cammo (well i wasn't gonna make this all one way) i must now conceed to fb's arguments, the B-29 was the superior night bomber, there, now go enjoy a celebratory bud


Good Lanc - and I agree, the Lanc had better night cammo, but I think the B-29 had better nose art, maybe we could debut that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 21, 2006)

if you mean dabate, you're on 

see, not only great cammo but great nose art too 

sources, all public domain........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2006)

While that is nice noseart Lanc, nothing beats the good old American pin up girl!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> While that is nice noseart Lanc, nothing beats the good old American pin up girl!


My point! 8) 




aereinellastoria


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 21, 2006)

ppfftt, Bomber command didn't need women we're far more refined than you savages "woman, ug ug" no we're much more advanced 






















that being said, we did have some women, far more tastefull than yours however 






all sources on right click........


----------



## Jank (Jul 21, 2006)

I think this one would look good on the side of a Lancaster:


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 21, 2006)




----------



## pbfoot (Jul 21, 2006)

but Candians like women


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 22, 2006)

yes the RCAF had a more liberal approach to the nose art, the Vicky you posted above being the most famous amoungst the RCAF..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 22, 2006)

So why did the British not embrace the pin up girl nose art anyhow?


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 22, 2006)

as far as I've be told the Brits were very consevative and 6gp (RCAF) Bomber Command wanted to be different so we kinda flaunted RAF discipline after all we were just colonials


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 22, 2006)

There also been some pretty bizzare ones as well




Best B-24


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 23, 2006)

ppfftt, face it you're loosing this one 

and yes pb's right, you must be aware of the stiff upper-lipped, very posh and pompus image of your typical pre-war RAF pilot "what what", "tally ho", "chocks away" and all that jazz, well whilst most of bomber command was made up of younger, less experienced men that wouldn't mind a woman on their planes, the older pompus types were in positions of greater power, and could stop such indecent exposure, as they were much more traditional and gentlemanly, baisically it comes down to respect and being true english gentlemen, naming aircraft however was almost encouraged, naming her made the crews feel closer to their 'craft, many crews even said they treated "their" lanc as their girlfriends, each crew member felt they had a connection with their aircraft and they never had to fight with other crew members for her, then of course the canuks came along, and as pb said, being mere deminions they weren't as refined as us and allowed scantily clad women, like the savages they were


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> ppfftt, face it you're loosing this one.


Don't think so, I don't think anyone had anything operationally that could touch this....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2006)

Im with FBJ.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 23, 2006)

can't see the pic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2006)

Edited with the collings foundation adaptation of the original scheme
Here's a ww2 photo, USAF


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 23, 2006)

This used to adorn the side of the Collins Foundation B24 in the mid 90's.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2006)

Thats the one that I saw back in 1995 along with a B-17. 9 O' she was called. I posted pictures of both of them a while back.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 23, 2006)

The B17's name is "nine-o-nine".

Ive flown on both aircraft.


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 23, 2006)

I am going with FBJ here "The Dragon and his Tail" is in a different league from the rest.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 24, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The B17's name is "nine-o-nine".
> 
> Ive flown on both aircraft.



Thats the name I was looking for. I posted pictures of them when I saw them in N. Carolina. Never got to fly on them though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 24, 2006)

as i recall that B-24 was only used as a formation aircraft? and who the hell puts nose art on the starboard side? 

you know i think the Americans used women so much to cover up an insecurity, they know their English skills are so lacking they just use women instead, the British, more specifically the English nose art uses a huge range of literary devices, including alliteration, simily and quotations, when it comes down to it i believe the RAF nose art had a far greater educational value, not only destroying germany but teaching jerry correct grammar at the same time, why else would they use spot lights other than to try and read the literary genius that is RAF nose are  this of course leads me onto my favourite of all the lancaster nose art, Nick the Nazi Neutralizer, very clever stuff...

but anyway why'm i arguing about nose art and why're you arguing about the B-24 this's supposed to be an argument about the lanc's cammo against the B-29's  which the lanc wins hands down........

picture source- our albums......

edit- why the frigging hell aint the picture showing?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> as i recall that B-24 was only used as a formation aircraft? and who the hell puts nose art on the starboard side?
> 
> you know i think the Americans used women so much to cover up an insecurity, they know their English skills are so lacking they just use women instead, the British, more specifically the English nose art uses a huge range of literary devices, including alliteration, simily and quotations, when it comes down to it i believe the RAF nose art had a far greater educational value, not only destroying germany but teaching jerry correct grammar at the same time, why else would they use spot lights other than to try and read the literary genius that is RAF nose are  this of course leads me onto my favourite of all the lancaster nose art, Nick the Nazi Neutralizer, very clever stuff...



Oh what a bunch of crap!  It showed what we were ultimetly fighting for! God, country, apple pie and a 38C! 



the lancaster kicks *** said:


> but anyway why'm i arguing about nose art and why're you arguing about the B-24 this's supposed to be an argument about the lanc's cammo against the B-29's  which the lanc wins hands down........
> 
> picture source- our albums......
> 
> edit- why the frigging hell aint the picture showing?


I agree about the cammo - probably the only thing the lac had over the B-29


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 24, 2006)

see, that's exactly the kind of American attitude I'm no about


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> see, that's exactly the kind of American attitude I'm no about


Yea, you love us and you know it! (Just don't get too close)


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 24, 2006)

Hows about this for British nose art?
Welcome
The Hally that did most missions- 128!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2006)

Turned out to be good luck!


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 24, 2006)

True, still I don't think it is as good as some of the others posted.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 25, 2006)

American pin up girls all the way!

I know why the Brits did not pain women on theres. They did not want to have a British woman on there with there screwed up teeth and all!

Just kidding my friends from England. That stereotype is not correct. I know this because I had a British girlfriend before.


----------



## k9kiwi (Jul 30, 2006)

Nose Art.

75 Sqn (Royal New Zealand Air Force) at Feltwell with Wellingtons, before upgrading to Stirlings, then Lancs.

Bones L7948 Also had the name Cuthbert.

Donald Duck Lost 04/08/03 R3176

Popeye R3169 lost 03/05/41

Wimpy L2820 lost 10/40

Old Bill transferred to 37 Sqn and sent to Egypt.

from www.feltwell.org

All dates are given as DD/MM/YY format.

See, Kiwis have a wierd sense of humour.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2006)

Nice pics.


----------



## k9kiwi (Jul 30, 2006)

Cheers.

I have been doing a large amount of research into 75 Sqn. As I have purchased a 1/48 Tamiya Lanc of Ebay (only one arm and 1/2 a leg too  )

It will be built up as a diorama of a dispersal area at Mepal December 1944, more than likely as 

AA-M
Serial NE 181
"The Captains Fancy"
101 missions
Scrapped 30 Sep 1947

One of only two 75 Sqn aircraft to make the magic 100 ops, and the only one to survive the war.

75 Squadron, Royal New Zealand Air Force

Motto: 
AKE AKE KIA KAHA 
(For Ever and Ever Be Strong)
Service: 

Formed in April 1940 form the New Zealand Wellington Flight and served in 3 Group until the end of the war. 

Aircraft: 

Wellingtons, Stirlings, Lancaster's 

Squadron Identity Code Letter(s):

AA, JN 

Stations: 

Feltwell, Mildenhall, Newmarket and Mepal

Operational Performance: 

Raids Flown 

3 Group Wellingtons – 291 bombing, 24 mine laying, 4 leaflet, 1 photoreconnaissance. 
3 Group Stirlings – 103 bombing, 107 mine laying 
3 Group Lancaster's – 190 bombing, 18 mine laying, 1 leaflet 

Totals: 584 bombing, 149 mine laying, 5 leaflet, 1 photo reconnaissance. 

Sorties and Losses 

3 Group Wellingtons – 2540 sorties, 74 aircraft lost (2.9 percent) 
3 Group Stirlings – 1736 sorties, 72 aircraft lost (4.1 percent) 
3 Group Lancaster's - 3741 sorties, 47 aircraft lost (1.3 percent) 

Totals : 8017 sorties, 193 aircraft lost (2.4 percent) 

An additional 8 Lancaster's were destroyed in crashes.

Points Of Interest: 

The first and only New Zealand squadron in Bomber Command. 
Victoria Cross: Sergeant J.A. Ward, Munster, 7/8 July 1941. Sgt. Ward was killed in action on a raid to Hamburg on 
15/16 September 1941. 
Carried out the fourth highest bombing raids of all heavy Bomber Command squadrons. 
Suffered second highest casualties in Bomber Command. 
Believed to have dropped the third greatest tonnage of bombs (21600 tons) in Bomber Command. 
Dropped 2344 mines, most likely representing the second highest in Bomber Command.


----------



## lonestarman63 (Aug 8, 2006)

The lanc had range, pay load over both b 17 and b24 . and pay load over the b 29
Yet i think if they flew the lanc ,in the day light the lanc , would have been shot down in far greater  numbers because of the fact that it did not have enough guns . 
The b 24 was built almost twice as much as the b 17 , it did have better speed range and pay load , yet it was shot down a lot more than the b 17 so the above fact about range speed payload means good on paper , 
The b 17 had half the sorties of the b 24 and twice the tons on target per ,mission so much for speed payload and range .
The b 17 also shot down more fighters than any other type bomber or fighter so in my thinking the b 17 was the better of the three


----------



## plan_D (Aug 8, 2006)

The Lancaster didn't have payload over the B-29. Where have you seen this? The B-29 could carry two Tallboys or two Grand Slams! The Lancaster couldn't. 

The B-24 dropped more tonnage on Axis Europe than any other heavy bomber in the Allied or Soviet arsenal. I believe it dropped more tonnage in the PTO and CBI as well.


----------



## lonestarman63 (Aug 8, 2006)

that was per sortie not total


----------



## lonestarman63 (Aug 8, 2006)

The b 29 could not


----------



## plan_D (Aug 8, 2006)

Evidence? The 'Upkeep' weighed a lot less than two Grand Slams. And two Grand Slams would have obliterated those dams.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 8, 2006)

lonestarman63 said:


> The lanc had range, pay load over both b 17 and b24 . and pay load over the b 29
> Yet i think if they flew the lanc ,in the day light the lanc , would have been shot down in far greater numbers because of the fact that it did not have enough guns .
> The b 24 was built almost twice as much as the b 17 , it did have better speed range and pay load , yet it was shot down a lot more than the b 17 so the above fact about range speed payload means good on paper ,
> The b 17 had half the sorties of the b 24 and twice the tons on target per ,mission so much for speed payload and range .
> The b 17 also shot down more fighters than any other type bomber or fighter so in my thinking the b 17 was the better of the three



Um you need to do some research buddy, before you go post things like that. The B-29 could carry 2 Tallboys weighing in at 12000lb each. That makes 24,000lb bomb load. It could also carry 2 Grandslam bombs weighing in at 22,000lb each. That is 44,000lb of bomb load.

The Lancaster could carry at most 22,000lb of bombs.

In order for the Lancaster to carry the Grandslam it had to be modified at the bomb bay doors. The B-29 had to carry them under the wings. Thats still carrying them though.

The B-29s internal bomb load was about 20,000lb and the Lancaster typicall carried 14,000lb.


----------



## Hop (Aug 8, 2006)

> The B-24 dropped more tonnage on Axis Europe than any other heavy bomber in the Allied or Soviet arsenal.



The Lancaster actually dropped more tonnage in Europe than any other bomber, the B-17 was second, the B-24 third.

According to the USAAF statistical digest, US heavy bombers 1,096,794 short tons of bombs in all theatres against Germany (ie including North Africa). I believe the breakdown is 640,036 short tons to the B-17, 452,508 short tons to the B-24.

The Lancaster dropped 681,645 short tons.


----------



## lonestarman63 (Aug 8, 2006)

not total


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 9, 2006)

it's my understanding that the B-29 was only ever planned to carry two grandslams but it was never actually tried?

and yes the lanc carried a greater tonnage than the B-17 -24, and she also carried more per sortie, all but one on these boards agrees the lanc is the best of the three and second best bomber of the war after the B-29, i can provide figures if needed but not for a few days, they are however already on the boards if you look hard enough.........................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 9, 2006)

lonestarman63 said:


> not total



Alright man, you need to start formulating posts. These posts of yours that contain two words or what not that are not even made into a sentence are confusing and annoying.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 9, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> it's my understanding that the B-29 was only ever planned to carry two grandslams but it was never actually tried?



Who cares if it was never done. The B-52 never dropped a nuke on an enemy, but it was capable.

The point is that the B-29 could carry 2 Grandslams that equal 44,000lb combined. That is 22,000lb more than the Lancaster could carry.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 9, 2006)

i'm not camparing the lanc to the B-29 in this thread if i was gonna do that i would've done it in the other thread, i'm now simply trying to establish facts, and is it not a fact it was never done?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 9, 2006)

Yes but that was never the argument.

The B-29 can carry more tonnage than a Lancaster. Is that not a fact?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 9, 2006)

yes, it is, and one that i am not disputing, now i wish you would stop trying to make out like i'm making an argument here, i'm just trying to establish weather she did or not......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 9, 2006)

Dont get your panties in a bunch. I would not have responded like that if you did not make 90% of your post that have to do with the Lancaster seem like you have to defend the Lancaster. No one here is disputing the capabilities of the Lancaster...


ATTENTION PLEASE. ANNOUNCEMENT TO BE MADE.

DO NOT MAKE POSTS ABOUT THE LANCASTER, WE DO NOT WANT TO HURT LANC'S FEELINGS. HE IS VERY SENTIMENTAL ABOUT THIS SUBJECT. 

THANKYOU MANAGMENT


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 9, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Dont get your panties in a bunch. I would not have responded like that if you did not make 90% of your post that have to do with the Lancaster seem like you have to defend the Lancaster. No one here is disputing the capabilities of the Lancaster...
> 
> 
> ATTENTION PLEASE. ANNOUNCEMENT TO BE MADE.
> ...



its 

"Thank You, The Management"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2006)

Hey syscom stop your damn english lessons okay, it is getting really old. We dont correct you on your typing mistakes.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 10, 2006)

I believe the B-29 did actually fly with two Grand Slams under it's wings. There's a picture that's a lot like that of two Tallboys. But until I find that picture, we shall assume it didn't. No evidence, no event - right?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2006)

Here is a pic of B-29 Wichita that carried a single Grandslam in the same modification that was made for the Lancaster.

This B-29 also was used to test and carry the 42,000lb T-12 bomb in the same fashion.



> Early summer 1945, three Boeing B-29s were modified to carry a 22,000 lb Grand Slam on external bomb racks under each wing between the inboard engine and fuselage. After experiments at Eglin AAF in Florida, an order for fifty modified aircraft was placed. If the war hadn’t ended with the dropping of the atom bombs, dual Grand Slam B-29s might have been available to see action over Japan by the first week of September. Postwar publicity photographs never show more than three of the dual bomb modified B-29s flying in a formation. That may have been all that were built. Another B-29 was modified so that the lower part of the double bomb bay section would permit the semi external carriage of one large bomb (Tallboy, Grand Slam or T-12?).



That is 42,000lb. Who was it up there that said the Lanc could carry more than the B-29?


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 10, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hey syscom stop your damn english lessons okay, it is getting really old. We dont correct you on your typing mistakes.



Aren't you in a bad mood today.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 10, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Here is a pic of B-29 Wichita that carried a single Grandslam in the same modification that was made for the Lancaster.
> 
> This B-29 also was used to test and carry the 42,000lb T-12 bomb in the same fashion.



I wonder if it had been used in Korea. I will ask on the B29 forum if any of the veterans have any details about it.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 10, 2006)

Wow. There's actually some interesting info in this thread. 
Awesome.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2006)

Yeap I agree its been good


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 10, 2006)

Heres the first answer I received from the B29 forum. This is quite interesting. I will post other reply's as they come in.

Note - I also included this information in my B29 thread.

I asked a question about this in the B29 forum and here is an interesting reply. As others come in, I will post them too.

("Mike Frey" <[email protected]>)
After WW2, the Grand Slam bomb was used with B-29s for practice bombing in Germany, to see if the bomb was capable of breaking through the heavily fortified submarine pens in Bremen. These particular missions had non-explosive "Grand Slam" bombs. US Military had former German POWs retrieve them (dig them out of the earth) so that they could be refitted with fins and reused. 

This information comes directly from Phil Guay, my flight instructor, who was assigned to this activity after the Pacific war ended.

The Grand Slam appears to be the original "bunker buster" type bomb and had a few variations over the years.


----------



## Ken812 (Aug 10, 2006)

Without a doubt, the almighty lanc. Come on, a max load of 22,000 lbs! Amazing!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 10, 2006)

Ken812 said:


> Without a doubt, the almighty lanc. Come on, a max load of 22,000 lbs! Amazing!


Here we go again! 

The B-29 was the most advanced, fastest and heaviest carrying bomber of WW2. the lanc a distant second. The B-29 was at least a generation a head of the Lancaster and carried the same bomb load as the Lanc almost 60 mph faster.....

I think you need to read through some of these threads....


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 10, 2006)

I'll wager the 29 could carry the same load with an engine out and maintain altitude all the Lanc with an engine out with 22000 pounds would do is beat the 29 at rate of descent


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 10, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> I'll wager the 29 could carry the same load with an engine out and maintain altitude all the Lanc with an engine out with 22000 pounds would do is beat the 29 at rate of descent


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 10, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> I'll wager the 29 could carry the same load with an engine out and maintain altitude all the Lanc with an engine out with 22000 pounds would do is beat the 29 at rate of descent



heheheheh


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 10, 2006)

maybe this will help everyone

VERY HEAVY CONVENTIONAL AERIAL BOMBS

PS. I learnt somewhere that a Grand Slam hit measured 2.5 on the Riechter scale.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 10, 2006)

Thats a great web site!

Thanks for the info.


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 11, 2006)

With regard to the original thread "B17, B24 or Lancaster" I would vote for the Lancaster for the following reasons:-

1. I'm a Brit
2. Lancaster had the edge in range to payload.
3. Versatility - Lanc could, and did, carry the dambuster bombs, Grand Slam and Tallboy. To the best of my knowledge the B17 and B24 were not tested with those weapons. Although to be honest the B24 did an outstanding job in the RAF Coastal Command.
4. A smaller crew - to my mind if an aircraft is shot down, the fewer casualties onboard, the better it is.

Admitedly the Lanc did not have the defensive armament of either the B17 or B24, but there was a different operational thought process. The Lanc few under cover of night, the B17 and B24 flew at high altitude during daylight providing mutual fire support.

I know that some members will give the arguments that the B17, B24 had bigger production runs, were faster and easier to build, but that just proves that the USA had the facility for mass production without having to worry too much about supply problems.

Similary there will be arguments about the Pacific Theatre of Operations, however the US had that pretty much to themselves, and even at the start of the war there was never a large RAF Bomber Command presence in the PTO. Any comparisons would need to be taken in the European Theatre of Operations to be considered valid.

I hope that everyone will appreciate that these are personal comments in order to progress a discussion.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 11, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Here we go again!
> 
> The B-29 was the most advanced, fastest and heaviest carrying bomber of WW2. the lanc a distant second. The B-29 was at least a generation a head of the Lancaster and carried the same bomb load as the Lanc almost 60 mph faster.....
> 
> I think you need to read through some of these threads....



I think he is talking about the B-17, B-24, and Lancaster. That is the title of the thread. 

Now if he is talking best ever of WW2.....Let him have it FBJ!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 11, 2006)

k9kiwi said:


> maybe this will help everyone
> 
> VERY HEAVY CONVENTIONAL AERIAL BOMBS
> 
> PS. I learnt somewhere that a Grand Slam hit measured 2.5 on the Riechter scale.



Thats a good site, thats where I got my info earlier on this topic.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 11, 2006)

While I agree the Lancaster was better than the B-24 and the B-17 I will respond to these:




daishi12 said:


> 1. I'm a Brit







daishi12 said:


> 3. Versatility - Lanc could, and did, carry the dambuster bombs, Grand Slam and Tallboy. To the best of my knowledge the B17 and B24 were not tested with those weapons. Although to be honest the B24 did an outstanding job in the RAF Coastal Command.



While I agree the Lanc was more versatile in bomb load compared to the B-17 and the B-24. When in comes to actual roles the B-17 could perform more roles than the Lancaster. No matter how you look at it, whatever kind of bomb load the Lancaster is carrying it is still considered strategic bomber role. Overall the B-17 was more versatile than the Lancaster.




daishi12 said:


> 4. A smaller crew - to my mind if an aircraft is shot down, the fewer casualties onboard, the better it is.



That smaller crew meant more workload on the single pilot and less defensive armament. That is actually not a benifit of the Lancaster my friend...



daishi12 said:


> I know that some members will give the arguments that the B17, B24 had bigger production runs, were faster and easier to build, but that just proves that the USA had the facility for mass production without having to worry too much about supply problems.



Agreed


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 11, 2006)

If I may, comment on your comments

"That smaller crew meant more workload on the single pilot and less defensive armament. That is actually not a benifit of the Lancaster my friend..."

is off set a little by my earlier comment

"Admitedly the Lanc did not have the defensive armament of either the B17 or B24, but there was a different operational thought process. The Lanc few under cover of night, the B17 and B24 flew at high altitude during daylight providing mutual fire support."

I do admit that having a second pilot to share the workload would have had advantages.

It is my opinion that with having three less crew means that there would be three fewer casualties in the case of the aircraft being lost. This can be considered to be a major advantage, if training time, experience and human tradgedy are taken into the mix.

Out of curiosity Eagle, could you advise which roles the B17 performed apart from strategic bomber? I know that some were converted to air-sea rescue and carried a lifeboat.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 11, 2006)

daishi12 said:


> If I may, comment on your comments
> 
> "That smaller crew meant more workload on the single pilot and less defensive armament. That is actually not a benifit of the Lancaster my friend..."
> 
> ...



Have you ever flown an aircraft at night, in the pitch black? Its a lot more stressing than flying one during the day. Now take a hundred more of these bombers and put them up into the sky together and have them fly formations in the pitch black. That is very very stressful and for only one pilot per aircraft, damn that really has to suck.



daishi12 said:


> It is my opinion that with having three less crew means that there would be three fewer casualties in the case of the aircraft being lost. This can be considered to be a major advantage, if training time, experience and human tradgedy are taken into the mix.



I understand that, but in the end that is what is needed to make a somewhat better defense. These crews knew what they were up against. I would rather have the 3 more and have the added defense.



daishi12 said:


> Out of curiosity Eagle, could you advise which roles the B17 performed apart from strategic bomber? I know that some were converted to air-sea rescue and carried a lifeboat.



Here is a list of B-17 roles:

Bomber (includes stategic, tactical, etc...)
Coastal Patrol
Search and Rescue
Bomber escort (gunship)
VIP Transport
Transport
Drone
Photo Reconnaissance
Trainer
Guided Bomb
AWACS
Electronic Warfare


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 11, 2006)

Thanks for that Eagle, the info is much appreciated.

I don't have a pilots license so the only thing I can say is that flying at night in a commercial aircraft scares the **** out of me  

Having the co-pilot would have been an advantage, but I don't think that having an extra 2 gunners in the waist (probably armed with a single Vickers K gun or Webley.45 pistol knowing the RAF) would have given a big advantage to the survivability of the aircraft.

I think that looking at your list I'd have much preferred to have done photo recon with a Mossie, P38, or Spit


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 11, 2006)

daishi12 said:


> Having the co-pilot would have been an advantage, but I don't think that having an extra 2 gunners in the waist (probably armed with a single Vickers K gun or Webley.45 pistol knowing the RAF) would have given a big advantage to the survivability of the aircraft.



When you are in the aircraft, every bit of armament is an advantage to your survivability.



daishi12 said:


> I think that looking at your list I'd have much preferred to have done photo recon with a Mossie, P38, or Spit



I probably would have as well but the B-17 Photo Recon was designed to carry photo equipment in the nose and bomb bays that was too large to be used on the Mossie, P38 or Spit.
It was also disigned to be used at Higher Alltitudes.


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 11, 2006)

I've just found a reference to the Lancastrian (Civillian airliner variant) fitted with Rolls Royce Nene turbojets making a flight between London and Paris in late 1946. It makes you wonder whether the RAF might have developed a jet bomber varient possibly armed with the remote control turrets as found in the B29 or A26 Avenger if the war had continued into 1946/47.

I've only been able to find 1 image of the Lancastrian with Nene engines, that is on the RAF website - The Royal Air Force - History


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 11, 2006)

A jet bomber yes, but not a jet version of the Lancaster. You would not have been able to get all the great qualities out of a jet bomber out of the Lancaster. She was bulky and big.


----------



## Ken812 (Aug 11, 2006)

Ok Flyboy, but if you READ the FIRST thread you will notice the B-29 is not part of the question.


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 11, 2006)

I would imagine that the RAF would have used the Lanc as a four engined jet test bed to see how much re-design would have been needed. 

The 4 x Nene's would produce approx 20,000lb thrust, so if the canopy and nose are streamlined, remote turrets added at dorsal and ventral, manual tail turret with paired .50's, pressurised cabin, bomb load of between 6 - 10,000lb and a higher fuel capacity, it may have been possible to have had a long range high altitude bomber. 

The problems that would have been encountered would have been the Me-262 and Me163 Komet. (I assume that armaments and engines would also be updated with the German aircraft)


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 11, 2006)

In response to your comment 

"You would not have been able to get all the great qualities out of a jet bomber out of the Lancaster. She was bulky and big."

I can only say one thing -- "B52"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 11, 2006)

Ken812 said:


> Ok Flyboy, but if you READ the FIRST thread you will notice the B-29 is not part of the question.


Your right, my mistake - on this thread the lanc is #1 (behind the B-29 overall)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 11, 2006)

i'm really not sure if i can be bothered to take part in this argument... unless syscom comes and starts going on about the B-24 again  so in the meantime i'll post gratuitus pictures of the lancastrian in queastion..............

sources- various internet sites.........


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 11, 2006)

Still a tie between the B24 and Lanc


----------



## Ken812 (Aug 11, 2006)

Overall the B-29 is better, i can't deny that


----------



## lonestarman63 (Aug 11, 2006)

The lanc was and is a great warplane to be sure . Yet i find it hard to compare the different roles . If you say it is better plane in range and payload and maybe speed it is better. But put in a nother 5 to a guns what do you have put on more armour what do you have a daytime bomber so it would be slower and have less payload , i would think . so given that i cannot compare the lanc to the b 17 and b 24 .

The real night and day comes from the b 17 and the b 24 can compare that , and as i study and read the b 17 was by far the better warbird some of the reasons , i think are worth looing at.
The b 17 easier to maintain and there for more available for combat
The b 17 spent have as much time in the modification centers thus read for action in shorter time
b 17 combat sorties versus the b24,results in 40 % savings in personnel and material
Statistcal comparisons done at loss rate per sortie shows that the b 17 had a 35 % longer combat life than the b 24
The b 24 was the most extravagant killer of any airplane AAF from pearl to sept of 44 the b 24 accdents in the US resulted in 2188 deaths in the first 9 months of 1944 b24 did 6% total flying in the U S but had 26% of all death , They flew 5% less than the b 17 and had 105 % more deaths and 85% more wreaks
Had the b 24 been as good as the b 17 from pearl to sept of 1944 we would have had 230 aircraft 904 more airmen and saved about 60,000,000 that is a lot of money and crews 
so i say there is a day and night between the 2 planes


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 12, 2006)

Thats a great pic of the Lancastrian w/Nene engines, thanks Lanc


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2006)

daishi12 said:


> In response to your comment
> 
> "You would not have been able to get all the great qualities out of a jet bomber out of the Lancaster. She was bulky and big."
> 
> I can only say one thing -- "B52"



Yes she was designed that way though. You would not have gotten great performance out of a Lancaster turned into a jet bomber.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Still a tie between the B24 and Lanc



No the Lancaster beat out the B-24 and that was proven to you over and over. You just wont admit defeat.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 12, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No the Lancaster beat out the B-24 and that was proven to you over and over. You just wont admit defeat.



It was proven that each had advantages and disadvantages.


----------



## bomber (Aug 12, 2006)

It's a falacy to say that the B24 or B17 had better guns than the Lancaster

Most German pilots say that what put them off attacking bombers was seeing tracers coming towards their plane, they didn't have to hit... they just had to be visible....

If a plane didn't fire, then the fighter pressed home the attack...

Now it's been said that the Lancaster wouldn't have survived in Daylight because it didn't have a mid-lower gun... or as you Americans call it the 'ball turret'... but the Lancaster did have a mid lower gun which was removed because it was felt superfluous when doing night time opps and constantly weaving... If holding a tight daylight formation box had been the order of the day then these mid-lower turrets or even a ball turret would have been fitted...

Let also look at the rear gun turret... the argument is that the B17/B25 having 0.5 make it superior because if it's range.... but yet again we have to view the 4x .303's in light of the fact the Lancaster was fitted out as a nightbomber where spotting the enemy fighter only occured at the very last second, at which time you wanted guns that had a huge rate of fire and at that short range was more than capable of doing the job... ie bringing a plane down...

And lets also not forget that the Lancaster MkVII had 0.5 in it's mid-upper and tail gunner turrets..

If you wanted a which one was better.... pound for pound at taking the battle to the enemy then the Lancaster was better....

If you want to know which was better at bailing out off at 15,000 ft in a downward spiral.... then that's a different question.

regards

Simon


----------



## plan_D (Aug 12, 2006)

I don't understand the infatuation in here with heavy defensive armament on bombers. The B-17 and B-24 both got shot down in droves without fighter escort even with all those guns. The Lancaster would have been just as survivable as both of those in the skies of Europe had it gotten the massive support of the escort fighters. 

It was the escort fighters that carried the bombing offensive, not the bombers own guns.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 12, 2006)

plan_D said:


> I don't understand the infatuation in here with heavy defensive armament on bombers. The B-17 and B-24 both got shot down in droves without fighter escort even with all those guns. The Lancaster would have been just as survivable as both of those in the skies of Europe had it gotten the massive support of the escort fighters.
> 
> It was the escort fighters that carried the bombing offensive, not the bombers own guns.



A Lanc in an unescorted daylight mission would have been even more vulnerable to German fighters.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 12, 2006)

the americans themselves proved mutual defence doesn't work when they almost stopped bombing after unescorted losses became too high, _any_ WWII bomber was going to get shot down if their attacker knew what they were doing, the fighter can pick and choose when and where to attack from in daylight, the guns did very little, it was the escort fighters that stopped the attacking fighters being able to pick and choose...........


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 12, 2006)

plan_D said:


> I don't understand the infatuation in here with heavy defensive armament on bombers. The B-17 and B-24 both got shot down in droves without fighter escort even with all those guns. The Lancaster would have been just as survivable as both of those in the skies of Europe had it gotten the massive support of the escort fighters.
> 
> It was the escort fighters that carried the bombing offensive, not the bombers own guns.



Thats true to a certain extent but its equally true that the Lanc didn't do well in the day bomber mode. Further if it were to remain in the day bomber role it would need ~2,000lbs or more of up graded armor, crew, crew accomodations and guns to be competitive with the B-17 in that arena. That would have also reduced the bomb load of the Lanc to the level of/less than the B-17 which is often overlooked. According to the Lancaster Archive web page the bomb load on a 2,000+mi which required a bombay tank, the bomb loadout was 7,000lbs of bombs. The B-17 at 2,000mi carried 6,000lb load of bombs, thats only 1,000lbs difference. I don't see a great advantage here and if you couple that with the greater operational availability of the B-17 and higher flight altitude, the case can be made that the B-17 was as good or better than the Lanc.

The Lancaster was a great bomber no doubt, its greatest advantage was the size of its bombay enabling it to carry a wider range of ordinance.

wmaxt


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 12, 2006)

As wounded Staff Sgt. John Hill was helped from his B-17 bomber after a raid on Jan. 13, 1943, the commander of the 305th Bomb Group, Col. Curtis LeMay came up and said:

"Don't worry, that bullet didn't have your name on it." 

"No," replied Hill, "but it had 'To whom it may concern' on it."

have a look at 8th Air Force Combat Losses in World War II ETO Against the AXIS Powers

lists loss statistics etc, the table on the casualties per aircraft position of crew is interesting.


----------



## bomber (Aug 12, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> A Lanc in an unescorted daylight mission would have been even more vulnerable to German fighters.



Based on what information ?


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 12, 2006)

On the 31 mar 45 6 group bombers got mauled by German fighters the pilots where trying to get into a box like formation like the USAAF to protect themselves 428 Sqn and i believe 434 were 2 of the 3 squadrons last in the daylight stream and they alone had no fighter cover. Most of the attackers were 262's . I just read the article a couple of days ago but am hardpressed to find it as I have just been donated a complete collection of Airforce (RCAFA) magazines and have them scattered all over


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 12, 2006)

Hi Eagle, I was just giving you a gentle leg pull with the B52 comment,  , hope I didn't offend.

I admit that the Lancastrian/Nene combination would not have made a good jet bomber, the thought was more along the lines of a concept test bed to evaluate performance. (and I would have loved to have seen what could have been done with the Lancaster) I think though that if a jet bomber was trialed in 1946/47 with the war still in progress, the Rolls Royce/Avro engineers would have worked with whatever was available at the time.

With regard to the defensive armament arguement there should be a recognition that the USAAF and RAF used totaly different tactical processes.

i.e. USAAF - daylight bombing from high level with in tight formations having mutual fire support and heavy fighter escort

RAF - nighttime missions usually at mid level using looser formations with not as much fighter support, (hoping and praying that night was your friend)

If you swap the tactics over so that the RAF flew day missions and the USAAF flew night missions the following would happen

RAF Lancs chopped out of the sky by every fighter that could be put into the air, USAAF B17's and B24's falling out of the sky when they collide because of the tight formations.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 12, 2006)

Formation flying at night would be impossible the technology just wasn't there


----------



## bomber (Aug 12, 2006)

No one survives a 262 attack, no matter how good your formation is, there's going to be casulaties... the only advantage to a bomber was the very fast closing speed which gave the 262 pilot 1 or 2 seconds at best of firing time....


----------



## bomber (Aug 12, 2006)

daishi12 said:


> RAF Lancs chopped out of the sky by every fighter that could be put into the air



Ok................. based on what known fact ?


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 12, 2006)

hi Bomber, I comments were based on the fact that that there were 2 different tactical thought processes.

"i.e. USAAF - daylight bombing from high level with in tight formations having mutual fire support and heavy fighter escort

RAF - nighttime missions usually at mid level using looser formations with not as much fighter support, (hoping and praying that night was your friend)"

If the USAAF flew at night with their daylight tactics -- collisions
If the RAF flew during the day with their night tactics -- you have a loose formation without much fighter escort = planes being chopped out of the sky.

The point I was trying to make is that the tactics dictated the way the aircraft was built and used. It makes it very difficult to compare aircraft, unless there is a similar tactical doctrine.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 12, 2006)

bomber said:


> Based on what information ?



Common sense. The Lanc was optimized for night time missions, the -17 and -24 for daylight.

The Lancs never had to deal with frontal attacks or deflection shots. Only the night fighters coming from below or dead astern.

Plus the night fighters came in one ata time stalking their targets. The -17's and -24's came across squadrons and groups in coordinated assaults.

Plus the Lanc didnt have all the heavy MG's the -17 and -24 had, because it flew at night, where the night fighters had to get fairly close to it. 

Throw in a single pilot, and the Lanc was far more vulnerable than the -17 and -24.


----------



## bomber (Aug 12, 2006)

daishi12 said:


> The point I was trying to make is that the tactics dictated the way the aircraft was built and used. It makes it very difficult to compare aircraft, unless there is a similar tactical doctrine.



But exactly.. and as such if Lancasters had been switched to daylight raids then they'd have been re-fitted as such....

It's horses for courses..

so you can't really compare the b24's, b17's or Lancaster unless you take into account the situations they flew in, and the design chnages that took place to optomise them for those situations...

But once you've done that.... the Lanc is still head and shoulders above either the b17 or b24.

Simon


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 12, 2006)

bomber said:


> But exactly.. and as such if Lancasters had been switched to daylight raids then they'd have been re-fitted as such....
> 
> It's horses for courses..
> 
> ...



Lanc couldnt fly at 30,000 ft like the B17


----------



## bomber (Aug 12, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Common sense. The Lanc was optimized for night time missions, the -17 and -24 for daylight.
> 
> The Lancs never had to deal with frontal attacks or deflection shots. Only the night fighters coming from below or dead astern.
> 
> ...



Single pilot..... ?

The lanc flew with 2 trained pilots.... where do you get single pilot from, or do you mean single seat ?

I'd agree that the attacking fighter tactics where different for daytime vs nighttime , but your premise that the Lancaster once fitted out for daytime raids with fighter escort support wasn't as capable or supperior to the b17/b24 is erroneous.

Please explain in detail why you'd think that was the case and I'll answer each point.

Simon


----------



## bomber (Aug 12, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Lanc couldnt fly at 30,000 ft like the B17



you're right.... but then neither did the b17 in reality


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 12, 2006)

bomber said:


> Single pilot..... ?
> 
> The lanc flew with 2 trained pilots.... where do you get single pilot from, or do you mean single seat ?


 The Lanc was configured with one set of flight controls, this is a definate disadvantage when flying in bad weather and when the aircraft is damaged, my only critisium of the Lanc...


----------



## bomber (Aug 13, 2006)

From sitting in the pilots seat of the Lancaster I'd say it was pretty easy to drag a wounded pilot out of it and into the lower side well...

The Lancster was fitted as a norm with only one yoke, but a second could have been fitted it it has been felt that one was needed but it never was, so that in itself must say something surely

And the b24 was noted as a pig to fly, very heavy controls.. it probably needed 2 men on the controls in a storm

Simon


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 13, 2006)

> The lanc flew with 2 trained pilots.... where do you get single pilot from, or do you mean single seat ?



actually bomber for the most part it was a single pilot, at the start of the war there, technically, was a co-pilot but he was later renamed as the Flight Engineer, however the flight engineer could almost always fly the aircraft comfortably for several hundred miles back to base and there are infact stories of the flight engineer actually landing the craft, although with not as much grace as the proper pilot  it'd have to be pretty bad by that stage however as there are just as many stories of pilots landing the craft with just one hand, she was a very forgiving aircraft to fly as all her pilots will testify.......

that being said it wasn't unheard of for a second proper pilot to be carried, infact it was standard proceedure, newly trained pilots would fly a few missions with an experienced crew as a "second dickie", so there will always be someone around that can fly the bird......... 

Next point bomber is very correct in saying it was possible to fit a second set of controls if nessisairy, as has been done with today's flying lancs, obviously it wasn't considdered very important to the RAF, and this's what i can make of why........

the Pilot was the most expensive crew member to train, putting two in every bomber would cost twice as much as putting one in every bomber. The next bit of logic is that there will _always_ be some attacks that even a second pilot can't save you from, such as your fuel blowing up and ripping the aircraft to shreads, so you've lost two pilots in one go and there was no point in having the other pilot. The RAF figured they'd put this extra pilot in annother aircraft, that way they can, for the same money as having a co-pilot, put an extra 14,000lbs on target, furthermore if the one plane has that attack that no co-pilot can save you from, you've only lost one pilot not two, because the other one's miles away in a completely different plane! slightly morbid thinking perhaps, but in a way it makes sence, experience with the twin pilot stirling made them think there's not many situations where a co-pilot can save you, and they occour so rarely that it's not worth the extra expence.........

now on to the issue of daytime bombing, this was covered last time we we argued the case of the lanc and B-24, and i calculated that in a daytime bombing career of over 40,000 daylight missions the lanc carried out, she suffered an average loss rate of only 0.7%, which for over 40,000 sorties isn't bad!


----------



## bomber (Aug 13, 2006)

The point I was making was that you can call the man a co-pilot, flight engineer or stewardess for all that it matters as long as if the main pilot (captain for want of a better word) became incapacitated then this other trained person who alos performs anothe rrole within the plane could fly the Lanc back to base and land her...

I was simply countering the point made that with only a single pilot onboard the Lancaster was more vulnerable

Regards

Simon

personaly I don't really care for which was the better, as I've said before it was 'horses for course'... and if anyone wants to skin a b24 for me I have 2 of those as well...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 13, 2006)

The Lancaster would not have done worse than the B-17 or B-24 in daytime bombing syscom. Your arguements are based off of your biased speculation and opinion but are not based on facts.

The Lancaster would have been fitted with more defensive armament for day time and it would have flown in tighter formations. I know that, everyone else knows that, you know that....

The Lancaster may not have been able to fly at 30,000ft. Who cares, what kind of arguement is that? Luftwaffe fighters were able to hit bombers well above 30,000ft so the 30,000ft is no advantage to the B-17.

There you go again syscom, making arguements without thinking because you own biased opinion can not admit something was better than a US built aircraft.


----------



## bomber (Aug 13, 2006)

I like all 3 bombers.... and lets not forget the Halifax..

But if we talk about the B24 we have to remember that this was a bomber rejected in it's early builds by the US forces...

And when trialed by the RAF was deemed unsuitable in it's present state for the European Theatre...

Now I have to assume that those issues were removed in preference to ignoring the RAF's comments, for it to then take part in European operations.

But that said the Lanc, Halifax, B17 B24 are all good bombers of their day and were capable airframe upon which to mount the rapidly increasing development that was occuring during those dark days.

I salute them all, the designers, the engineers and fitters that made them and the young men that flew them...

>S<

Simon


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 13, 2006)

Hi Eagle, just read your comments about the heavier armaments for the Lanc in day time missions. I think that if the Lanc was reconfigured with the Browning M2 .50 there would be a major detrimental effect simply because of the much greater weight of the guns and ammo. (The M2 weighed at least 20kg than the Browning model 1919 and the ammo was about 4 times heavier)

If the Lanc had been uprated to carry 10 M2's you are talking about nearly 600lb extra, and thats without ammo and 2 gunners, so assume in total about an extra 2,000lb+. This does not take into account the fact that the turrets would need to be redesigned as well.

The extra weight of the guns and crew would degrade the range/payload figures which would mean that the Lanc would at best become mediocre.

As I have said before the operational tactics dictated the aircraft cabability.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 13, 2006)

bomber said:


> .
> 
> But that said the Lanc, Halifax, B17 B24 are all good bombers of their day and were capable airframe upon which to mount the rapidly increasing development that was occuring during those dark days.
> 
> ...



Agreed 100%.

I personally like the B-17 as my favorite but I know the Lancaster was better. Now having said that all were great aircraft. Some of us just cant comprehend that...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 13, 2006)

daishi12 said:


> Hi Eagle, just read your comments about the heavier armaments for the Lanc in day time missions. I think that if the Lanc was reconfigured with the Browning M2 .50 there would be a major detrimental effect simply because of the much greater weight of the guns and ammo. (The M2 weighed at least 20kg than the Browning model 1919 and the ammo was about 4 times heavier)
> 
> If the Lanc had been uprated to carry 10 M2's you are talking about nearly 600lb extra, and thats without ammo and 2 gunners, so assume in total about an extra 2,000lb+. This does not take into account the fact that the turrets would need to be redesigned as well.
> 
> ...



I disagree. The Lancaster could carry 22,000lb of bombs. The average payload carried by the Lancaster was just over 14,000lb. Okay so fine you add 2000lb of defensive armament and then you take away 2000lb of bombs to make up for the weight and what do you have 12,000lb of bombs. Still more than the average B-17 and B-24 carried on any given mission.


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 13, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Agreed 100%.
> 
> I personally like the B-17 as my favorite but I know the Lancaster was better. Now having said that all were great aircraft. Some of us just cant comprehend that...



Also agree, but prefer the Lanc


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 13, 2006)

Trust me daishi12 I know all about weight and balance, center of gravity drag and so forth. I am an aircraft mechanic. Granted I work on helicopters but weight and ballance, center of gravity and so forth effect a helicopter more than a fixed wing aircraft.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 13, 2006)

I'd like to bring up a point I think that has been missed night flying was inherently more dangerous than daylight the number of aircraft relying on basic instruments with poor weather forecasting and pilots that were less skilled then required. The pilots being less skilled is not an insult but a fact of life they were less skilled simply because of requirements the training was good but they probably could use great deal more particularly in instrument flying . the instrument flying was rudimentary when compared to today how many aircraft crashed not from enemy combat but because of poor instrunent flying and weather. One particular mission 0n 16/12/43 25 aircraft were lost due to enemy action and 32 crashed or were abandoned because of the weather upon returning thats out of 483 dispatched to Berlin. So you saved losses due to enemy action at night but the recovery was inherently more dangerous. Were these weather related accidents considered combat losses or other?


----------



## bomber (Aug 13, 2006)

daishi12 said:


> If the Lanc had been uprated to carry 10 M2's you are talking about nearly 600lb extra, and thats without ammo and 2 gunners, so assume in total about an extra 2,000lb+. This does not take into account the fact that the turrets would need to be redesigned as well.
> 
> The extra weight of the guns and crew would degrade the range/payload figures which would mean that the Lanc would at best become mediocre.
> 
> As I have said before the operational tactics dictated the aircraft cabability.



To start with it'd be 8 not 10.... 

2 nose
2 mid-upper
2 mid-lower
2 tail

and what do yo mean 'if',, the Lancaster was fitted out with 0.5's... MkVII and MkX carried them in differing configurations.

Simon


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 13, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Trust me daishi12 I know all about weight and balance, center of gravity drag and so forth. I am an aircraft mechanic. Granted I work on helicopters but weight and ballance, center of gravity and so forth effect a helicopter more than a fixed wing aircraft.



I do trust you on this Eagle, the point I made was that there is a trade off between the extra weight versus range/payload. I am sure that all the members of the site are fully aware that there is a 24kg (54lb)difference between the M2 and the model 1919 brownings, but I do wonder whether everyone realises how much difference it actually makes - roughly the equivilent of a Ford Escort - which has got to be hauled to and from the target. This would downgrade performance a large amount.

I'm not saying it couldn't be done, just the operational tactics of the B17, B24, Lanc where different and the aircraft where optimised for the tactics.

The nearest thing I can think of on the UH60 is replacing the M60's with M2 HBs and the same amount of ammo..it would change the mission profile.


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 13, 2006)

bomber said:


> To start with it'd be 8 not 10....
> 
> 2 nose
> 2 mid-upper
> ...



The MkVII had 2 x .50 cals in the tail
The MkXX had 2 x .50 cals in the tail, 2 in the mid-upper 
The turrets for both varients where heavier than normal, and in particular the MkXX mid-upper had to be re-sited.

I took the idea of 10 x .50 cals from the B17G along with having waist gunners.


----------



## bomber (Aug 13, 2006)

I wish I had my Lancaster Manual on me, but I had to lend it back to the library 

the number of m2 rounds that were taken was different to the .303

Now ok the mission profile I'll agree would have changed... to what level could be an interesting debate. but you also said

"The Lanc would at best become mediocre"

You've yet to prove this statement... apart from the fact that she'd have to lug more weight to target, which you've not said she's not capable of doing, but in doing so how would it have made her mediocre at best...

Simon


----------



## bomber (Aug 13, 2006)

daishi12 said:


> The MkVII had 2 x .50 cals in the tail
> The MkXX had 2 x .50 cals in the tail, 2 in the mid-upper
> The turrets for both varients where heavier than normal, and in particular the MkXX mid-upper had to be re-sited.
> 
> I took the idea of 10 x .50 cals from the B17G along with having waist gunners.



nope

The MkVII had 2 x 0.5 cal in the tail and mid-upper

The MkX had 2 x0.5 cal in the mid-upper and a .303 quad in the tail.

and yes the mid upper did have to be resite 1 yard further up the fuselage...

Waist gunners ... ok

Simon


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 13, 2006)

bomber said:


> but you also said
> 
> "The Lanc would at best become mediocre"
> 
> ...



It is not just a case of lugging the weight to the target, it's getting it back as well, admitedly there would be ammo expenditure but you are still bringing back the guns, turrets and crew. The unladen weight would go up to nearly 39,000lb, this in turn means less fuel or bomb load which in turn either decreases range or strike capacity. Depending on the size of the mid-upper and lower turret there would also be additional drag - this would cut cruise speed. I would also imagine that there would also be an effect on the control surfaces which in turn would make it harder to fly.

I stand corrected on the MkX


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 13, 2006)

To make the lanc viable as day bomber it would require some sort of defence from attacks from below which aside from the weight incurred with the position would require the shortening of the bombay


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 13, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> To make the lanc viable as day bomber it would require some sort of defence from attacks from below which aside from the weight incurred with the position would require the shortening of the bombay



Good point PB, as you see from the above posts Bomber and I have had a look into that.

A ball turret would also have had a big aerodynamic impact.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 13, 2006)

bomber said:


> From sitting in the pilots seat of the Lancaster I'd say it was pretty easy to drag a wounded pilot out of it and into the lower side well...
> 
> The Lancster was fitted as a norm with only one yoke, but a second could have been fitted it it has been felt that one was needed but it never was, so that in itself must say something surely
> 
> ...


The B-24 becuase a pig when it lost one or more engines or when the wing itself was damaged, at that point the Davis airfoil ceased to be effective. I think today the last of the Lancs that are flying require a second pilot by order of the CAA.



the lancaster kicks *** said:


> the Pilot was the most expensive crew member to train, putting two in every bomber would cost twice as much as putting one in every bomber. The next bit of logic is that there will _always_ be some attacks that even a second pilot can't save you from, such as your fuel blowing up and ripping the aircraft to shreads, so you've lost two pilots in one go and there was no point in having the other pilot. The RAF figured they'd put this extra pilot in annother aircraft, that way they can, for the same money as having a co-pilot, put an extra 14,000lbs on target, furthermore if the one plane has that attack that no co-pilot can save you from, you've only lost one pilot not two, because the other one's miles away in a completely different plane! slightly morbid thinking perhaps, but in a way it makes sence, experience with the twin pilot stirling made them think there's not many situations where a co-pilot can save you, and they occour so rarely that it's not worth the extra expence.........



While Lanc brings up good points in the early WW2 way of thinking about crew resources, a second pilots proved to be the safer and more reliable course to go. It was proven that the pilot can go into "overload." Too many things happening for him to keep control of the aircraft. Battle damage, bad weather, wounded or incapacitated crew members, etc. Combine this with a low time pilot (200-300 hours) it could be a set up for disaster and this is the only thing I think the B-17 and B-24 had over the Lanc. Pilot resources were scarce for the RAF, especially early in the war so I understand the rationalle for going with the a single pilot in large multi-engine aircraft. There were early instrument landing procedures used over England and they were difficult enough to fly under routine conditions, accomplish them at night with a damaged aircraft and one pilot, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

Taking nothing away from the brave and skilled crews of the Lancaster, I think many more would of made it home had the aircraft been equipped with a second pilot.


----------



## bomber (Aug 13, 2006)

No there's no requirement to shorten the bombbay as the Lanc was designed but not fitted (in most cases) with a mid-lower turret in mind... granted the addition of a one would have had a drag inpact.

Looking at the 0.5 cal turret in comparrision to the .303 turret I'd say fitting the 0.5 cal turret would actually reduce the drag.. and certainly it makes no difference one way or the other with regards the tail turret.

look at these stats

Bomber Statistics

Now if not withstanding that the B24's stats seem somewhat odd... if we load all 3 on a level playing field of 6000lb bombload... I still can't see how the Lanc becomes a mediocre bomber...

regards

Simon

p.s. really enjoying this debate...


----------



## bomber (Aug 13, 2006)

Flyboyj... you're floggin a dead horse there mate...

It's been explained that a second pilot rated crewmember existing no more than 2ft away from the controls, should the pilot become incapacitated..

Yes there's a lot to do as a pilot, but with half the instrumentation removed from his control panel and placed on the flight engineers controll panel, the pilot is offered a far less cluttered working area.

And the Lancaster could lose 3 of it's 4 engines and still fly....

Simon


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 13, 2006)

bomber said:


> Flyboyj... you're floggin a dead horse there mate...
> 
> It's been explained that a second pilot rated crewmember existing no more than 2ft away from the controls, should the pilot become incapacitated..
> 
> ...


I think Lanc has point out that the "second rated pilot" had limited flying experience and sometime that limited experience will cause more harm that good. It better to have both pilots in the proximity of each other working as a functional team, that's known as "Cockpit Resource Management" and is still used today.

The norm for a single pilot never stayed as after the war these liabilities were realized and the co-pilot made his resurrection in post war multi engine RAF aircraft


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 13, 2006)

you put a turret on the bottom you have no room for waist gunners plus the drag and change to CG would definately change not including the extra weight for the controlling system for the turret be it electric or hydraulic this is my best pic which features the area we are discussing. The door location would have to be changed . The fuselage I think have to be stressed a great deal great .


----------



## bomber (Aug 13, 2006)

Ok if the argument is it's better to have 2 pilots sat in their seats with a yoke in their hands than 1.... then of course it is, I'd have to be an argumentative fool to disagree.

However this was what was orignally said..



syscom3 said:


> Throw in a single pilot, and the Lanc was far more vulnerable than the -17 and -24.



And It's from this statement that I've argued the case that there wasn't just a single person capable of flying the plane.... and lets not forget he was RAF trained to fly.

regards

Simon


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 13, 2006)

In looking at the single engine pilot configuration, it was only more vulnerable when placed in the situation I showed. If all was well and functional through the mission, I see this being a non-issue.

Once an aircraft is incapacitated, there are usually 2 or more factors that will cause its demise. Mind you this doesn't include the direct 88mm hit. There have been many aircraft lost while distressed because the pilot neglected to do a simple task, as realized the inclusion of a second pilot mitigates this risk, although there have been instances then both pilots made the same fatal mistakes that caused the loss of their aircraft. As you mentioned its obvious that a second crewmember would never bring a disadvantage to the situation.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 13, 2006)

daishi12 said:


> I do trust you on this Eagle, the point I made was that there is a trade off between the extra weight versus range/payload. I am sure that all the members of the site are fully aware that there is a 24kg (54lb)difference between the M2 and the model 1919 brownings, but I do wonder whether everyone realises how much difference it actually makes - roughly the equivilent of a Ford Escort - which has got to be hauled to and from the target. This would downgrade performance a large amount.
> 
> I'm not saying it couldn't be done, just the operational tactics of the B17, B24, Lanc where different and the aircraft where optimised for the tactics.



Yes it may have changed the mission profile due to the less amount of bomb load carried but it still would have been more than the B-17 or the B-24.



daishi12 said:


> The nearest thing I can think of on the UH60 is replacing the M60's with M2 HBs and the same amount of ammo..it would change the mission profile.



I fly the UH-60. That has allready been done. We have the mounts for the M2 built into our aircraft. It did not great reduce the performance or the amount of payload or troops that could be carried on a standard typical mission. The only reason it was discontinued was because of the stress the aircraft took from firing the M2 caused cracks in the airframe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 13, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It better to have both pilots in the proximity of each other working as a functional team, that's known as "Cockpit Resource Management" and is still used today.



Nope that has not changed today. Same as it was in 1944. Infact we even still call it that in the Blackhawk.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 13, 2006)

this's all getting very interesting, however i would like to make a few points before making further comments with regards to the .50cals tomorrow morning after some research tonight.........

firstly, waist gunners would never be carried on the lanc, experience in the wellington made the RAF favour a turret as the "spray and prey" tactics of the wait posistion were considdered useless (and i personally must agree), the RAF hated them and there was no provision to carry them in the lancaster, further more the twin fins which the wellington and B-17 don't have would restrict their arc of fire and put the fins themselves in danger of getting hit.......

secondly bomber, no lancaster varient ever carried any of the twin .50cal rear turrets as standard as you're making out, many individual lancs were trialed with them towards the end of the war however, some crews actually prefering the 4x .303 to the .50s!.........

next, don't trust any stats on that site, some of them made me chuckle, not only do they not even give models/marks but there are numerous inaccuracies for example the Polish Air Force never used the lancaster........

next to pB, the crew entry door would not have to be re-located nor the aircraft strengthend to carry a ventral turret, as it would have been fitted in the location of the H2S radome, which some would argue could be lost as it was less useful by day, the bomb bay would not be adjusted as this would be a task of epic proportions! 

i shall come to the issue of "up-gunning" the lancaster tomorrow morning, although i have commented on it in the past............

and to the other guys arguing the cause for the lanc, flyboy's right a second pilot would be an advantage so don't try to convince anyone otherwise, i have simply tried to explain the RAF's logic which does make some sence and have tried to testify to the skill of the lancaster pilots.......


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 13, 2006)

Ah Lanc a question I've been meaning to ask about the HS2 it required cooling as it was heavy user of Electric meaning it got hot and unless cooled would be next to useless what method did they use to cool the HS2


----------



## bomber (Aug 13, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> secondly bomber, no lancaster varient ever carried any of the twin .50cal rear turrets as standard as you're making out, many individual lancs were trialed with them towards the end of the war however, some crews actually prefering the 4x .303 to the .50s!.........



To my knowledge the MkVII destined for the 'tiger force' was fitted with 0.5 cal rear turret as standard....

It's was also designed to have 0.5 cal mid-uppers as standard but due to supply chain issues some where fitted with .303 turrets


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 13, 2006)

Re the Lower Turret.

The original lower turret was situated behind the bomb bay and was a hydraulicly operated turret, It's main limitation was the use of a periscope for the gunner which significantly reduced his ability to detect targets.

The plane was designed with this in mind. Normal flight in a Lanc is slightly nose down, insert a lower turret and you would probably end up with a level / nose high angle, but no serious impact otherwise.

http://www.lancaster-archive.com/Lanc-TurretsML.htm shows the general arrangement of the F.N. 64 turret, altough it neglects the sighting periscope and head rest that would have come from the lower rear of the turret on an angle similar to the control yoke shown.

Also a number of squadrons put a gimbal mounted setup in the floor as well to give themselves at least a chance against a belly attack.

Yes the change from the Fraser Nash F.N. 50 to the Martin 250 Mid Upper did require moving the turret forward for CG reasons. It was also universaly hated by aircrew as it was significantly deeper into the aircraft and made exit / entry tricky, especially when everything went pear shaped.

Ammunition was dropped from 2,000 .303 rounds to 1,600 for the .50 Mid Upper turret.

The change to the .50 in the tail saw a dramatic drop in the firing time for the gunner as the ammunition had been reduced from 2,500 rounds per gun to a figure (that Lanc can provide, I can't remember  ) from memory it reduced from just over 4 minutes at 600 rpm for the .303 to about 30 seconds worth in the .50 turret.

Also note, no operational unit flew with the .50 rear turret in the ETO, they were all for Tiger Force.

HS2 radar and avionics controls were in the perspex dome underneath the fuselage, a nice cold place to be at 18,000 + feet. The main box was up by the navigator just behind the pilots seat and required no cooling except for normal vents in the case.

The rear of the perspex dome was kept clear (unpainted) due to covering 2 of the 3 IFF lights. They needed to be able to shine though for observation from below.


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 13, 2006)

Maybe this will help.

The view underneath shows the large round space where the lower turret was sited (then the H2S as lanc said). 

The No 13 shows the 3 IFF lights, and the top right corner schematics show the clear part of the H2S dome over the lights.

Damn that came out BIG


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 14, 2006)

ok almost there, am just missing one peice of info which seems very illusive on the internet, what was the average weight of a .50cal cartridge? not just the projectile weight but the weight of the whole lot, casing, explosive etc..........


----------



## Glider (Aug 15, 2006)

bomber said:


> To my knowledge the MkVII destined for the 'tiger force' was fitted with 0.5 cal rear turret as standard....
> 
> It's was also designed to have 0.5 cal mid-uppers as standard but due to supply chain issues some where fitted with .303 turrets



I undersatand that Lancaster III's built in Canada were due to have the Martin twin .50 turret but supply wasn't sufficient. The turret was moved forward to accomadate the extra weight but the standard twin .303 was fitted in its place. There wasn't a different version number if I recall.


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 15, 2006)

Glider.

The Victory factory in Canada produced the Mk.X and the Mk.XII not the Mk.III

The Mk.X was bog standard .303

The Mk.XII had a .50 Mid Upper Turret from memory. As per the Mynarski Lanc, the only one flying apart from the BBMF Lanc.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 15, 2006)

The Mk.X's built in Canada were essentially Mk.III's. The major difference was in the avionics, being of Canadian and American origin.


----------



## Glider (Aug 15, 2006)

k9kiwi said:


> Glider.
> 
> The Victory factory in Canada produced the Mk.X and the Mk.XII not the Mk.III
> 
> ...



Thanks for that. I admit to never having heard of the MkXII, as ever, you live and learn on this site


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 16, 2006)

the reason you've never heard of the Mk.XII is because it doesn't exist  maybe you're thinking of the Mk.XII hurricane which i believe Canada produced...........

and as for the Mk.VII, the first 50 odd, serial numbered NX548-589 and NX603-610 were fitted with the standard Frazer-Nash FN.50 mid upper turret in the further forward position and these went into service as Mk.Is.............

the remaining Mk.VIIs were all fitted with the Martin 250 mid upper, with the exception of the Mk.VII (Western Union), some Mk.VIIs were later fitted with the FN.82 rear turret............

now then, if someone could tell me the weight of a .50cal round or even better the weight of say 100 plus links, i can post more about this little turret debate.........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 16, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> the reason you've never heard of the Mk.XII is because it doesn't exist  maybe you're thinking of the Mk.XII hurricane which i believe Canada produced.


Correct. Canada produced the Hurricane Mk.X through Mk.XIIA, with the exception of an initial batch of Mk.I's. All Canadian built Lancasters however were designated the Mk.X (redesignated Mk.10 post-war), regardless of any minor modifications made.

Sorry, I hadn't even picked up on that.


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 16, 2006)

My apologies.

Note to self....

Stop mixing programing, alcohol, and forums.

Even the program didn't work today, took two hours to sort the mess I made.

However the Beer did.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 16, 2006)

All was not lost then!


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 17, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> now then, if someone could tell me the weight of a .50cal round or even better the weight of say 100 plus links, i can post more about this little turret debate.........




I have found 1 site which states that the total weight of a single .50 BMG round is approx 1760 grains or approx 4 ounces.

Assuming that the Lanc is up gunned to 8 .50 M2's (nose, mid-upper, mid-lower, tail with 2 guns each) each gun having approx 3 minutes firing time per gun - given that the M2 has a rate of fire of 550 rpm this amounts to 13200 rounds of ammo = 3300lb (approx 1500Kg). This does not include the weight of the ammo belts.

I cannot find a comparable weight of the .30 cal round so I am having to make some big assumptions - I think it would be resonable to assume that the .30 cal round would be about 1.3 ounces which gives the following figures - Browning 1919 @ 600 rpm for 3 mins = 14400 round = 1170lb (approx 530Kg). This does not include the weight of the ammo belts.


The additional weight of crew (gunner + co-pilot) plus turret redesign plus the guns themselves the weight could be about 770lb

So total weight could be in excess of 4000lb extra.

Taking into account Eagles comment about not fitting M2's to the UH60 because it causes cracks in the airframe, this would be amplified quite significantly firing eight at the same time.

I think that if the above thoughts are taken into account, then my earlier thought that if the Lanc was converted to daylight tactics it would become mediocre (fuel/bombload) has an amount of validity.

If, however, there had been a number of B17's given to the RAF for night time duty it would make an interesting discussion, i.e. down grade the guns to .30 cals, lose the waist gunners, and use the weight savings to increase bomb/fuel load.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 17, 2006)

daishi12 said:


> .....If, however, there had been a number of B17's given to the RAF for night time duty it would make an interesting discussion, i.e. down grade the guns to .30 cals, lose the waist gunners, and use the weight savings to increase bomb/fuel load.



I would keep the .50's, but convert the ball turret to a tunnel gun setup, remove the waist guns, remove the radio operators gun, perhaps use only a single .50 in the nose instead of the turret on the "G" model.

You could even reduce the ammount of ammo per gun.

However that weight savings would be offset by the need for more avionics to successfully operate at night.

The same holds true for the B24.


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 17, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I would keep the .50's, but convert the ball turret to a tunnel gun setup, remove the waist guns, remove the radio operators gun, perhaps use only a single .50 in the nose instead of the turret on the "G" model.
> 
> You could even reduce the ammount of ammo per gun.
> 
> ...



I would convert the .50's to .30's , but with possibly quad .30's in the ball turret and tail, strip out the waist guns, have about 3-4 mins of ammo per gun (I don't know how much ammo was carried for daylight missions) and have the same radar that was in the Lancs.

The weight lose and smoother airframe (no huge holes in the waist) would have significant impact (faster, higher, handles better), even with the weight of the improved avionics taken into account.


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 17, 2006)

Stop cunfusing the British .303 round with the American .30 they are different beasts

British Browning .303

Caliber 7.7 x 56 mm Rimmed 
Weight 10.6 Gram
RPM 1150
Muzzle velocity 750 M/s
Gun Weight 10 kg

American Browning .30

Caliber 7.52 x 63 mm
Weight 10.5 Gram
RPM 1200
Muzzle velocity 870 M/s
Gun Weight 10.3 kg

American Browning .50 M2

Caliber 12.7 x 99 mm
Weight 43.3 Gram
RPM 750-850 
Muzzle velocity 880 M/s
Gun Weight 29 kg


----------



## Glider (Aug 17, 2006)

Similar to Syscom I would ditch the chin turret, waist guns, radio op gun but would keep the ball turret, remember that most nightfighters came from below.


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 17, 2006)

have a look at Kiwi Aircraft Images it shows the Lancaster I regularly visit at MOTAT Auckland NZ.

Go to the features pages and look at the Lancaster pages, it shows the .50 Rose Rice rear turret and near the bottom can be seen a few features of the ammunition and feed mechanisim.

Note in the two pics below the difference from 2 tracks per side (.303) to one track (.50).

Also note the intermediary feed motors required to overcome inertia of the belts.


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 17, 2006)

Must stop multiple posts, I finally found the Advanced Edit Button, Doh. I found this for Lanc.

From left to right.
.303 British (7.7x56R)
.5 inch Vickers (12.7x81)
.50 Browning (12.7x99)
20mm Hispano (20x110)
7.92mm v-Munition (7.92x57)
20mm MG-FFM (20x80RB)
15mm MG 151 (15x96)
20mm MG 151/20 (20x82)
13mm MG 131 (13x64B)


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 17, 2006)

k9kiwi said:


> Stop cunfusing the British .303 round with the American .30 they are different beasts




Hi Kiwi, all we are trying to find is the comparative sizes of the complete cartridge i.e. case, propellant and bullet. I have found 1 source that states that the .50 weighs in at a touch over 4 oz and is 99mm in length..do you have any info on either the .303 or the .30?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 17, 2006)

now i have the baisic figure of 1x .50cal= 4 ounces i will post at greater length tomorrow morning about the weights involved with the extra guns/ammo using more official RAF figures, i'll have to make some estimates as to the weight of the links


----------



## Jank (Aug 17, 2006)

I would be surprised if a loaded .50 BMG weighed in at 4 oz. or more. Even a 750grain projectile weighs 1.71 oz. (One ounce equals 437.5 grains)

I don't think the case, primer and propellent weigh as much as the projectile.

I have a loaded .50 BMG cartridge at home but no scale for measurement in ounces.

Here is a link that indicates that a .50 API cartridge weighs in at 4.032 oz. with a 622.5 grain projectile (1.42 oz.). I find it difficult to believe that the case, propellent and primer would be so heavy but perhaps I am wrong.

.50 Caliber Browning (12.7 x 99 mm) Ammunition


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 17, 2006)

All you never needed to know about the .50 cal round

.50 Caliber Browning (12.7 x 99 mm) Ammunition

Note the list for M2 Ball states 1,813 gr (117.48 gm)

now 117.48 grams converts to 4.143943 Standard Ounces and 3.776888 Troy ounces.


yet MILITARY AMMO -- .50 CALIBER

Shows from the Army Ammunition Data Sheet that it is a 709 gr round at 3050 fps

Still Heres what Lanc was after from this page

*The weight of 100 rounds of linked M2 ball in ammunition can is approximately 35 pounds.*

I guess it depends on where you get the data from.

Take your pick.


----------



## Jank (Aug 17, 2006)

Great link there k9kiwi. How'd you ever come across that?


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 18, 2006)

Um. My other job is programming internet security systems and web network structures, online databases etc. Lots of 1's and 0's in a row.  

Not hard to search stuff when you get it worked out how the puppy works. 

My other job is playing with water and fire, but thats the fun side.


----------



## Jank (Aug 18, 2006)

I was half joking k9kiwi.

I cited the .50 Caliber Browning (12.7 x 99 mm) Ammunition link in the post right before yours.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 18, 2006)

thanks for that added info, i realize they're not British/RAF figures but it's all I've got so bear with me........

the original question posed i believe was did the _ammunition and guns carried by the_ .50cal rear turrets incour greater weight upon the lanc than the FN.20/120 series ammunition guns? I'll probably pass comment on the actual turrets as we go

so, standard ammo count for lanc's rear turret= 2,500 rpg, 10,000x .303 rounds in total for the rear turret, now including links and fixed ammo bins that's 661.5lbs 

now the guns, 4x browning .303s weighed 92lbs

ammo and guns for rear turret= 753.5lbs (but bear in mind some of the official modifications to the lanc would reduce this very slightly)

and that's for 130 seconds of firing time, which even by day you'd be hard pressed to use up

OK the .50cals, the Rose Rice turret carried 335rpg and 2x .50cals, so using the rough figure 100 linked rounds= 35lbs, 35x 3.35= 117.25lbs, times that by two 'cos of the two guns= 234.5lbs of ammo carried, each .50cal weighed 64lbs, giving a ammo and gun weight of 362.5lbs, and that will give you 24 seconds of firing time, which by night is fine but by day you might want a little more, so what happens if you double the ammo count...

48 seconds of .50cal firing time plus guns= 597lbs, so even if you double the ammo count of the .50cals the all up weight is less than that of the 4x .303s, and it can be assumed the actual turret weights will be roughly similar with the Rose Rice and FN.82 and FN.20/120, the .50cal turrets will weigh more but certainly not enough to make up the 156.5lb difference, so the .50cals do offer a weight advantage........

but i believe this's in the context of daytime missions, for which you will be wanting a ventral turret no doubt? well this poses a problem... can you do without H2S in daytime is the question? because if you still want H2S the best we can do is a single .50cal or .303 sticking through the rear of the fuselage somewhere, which would at least be enough to discourage attacks from the underside, the other question is would you have an extra gunner to man the position? with the FN.64 it was the responsibility of the dorsal gunner to man the ventral gun, so let's try out a few possibilities assuming we're going on a daylight mission with a .50cal rear turret with double the ammo count and, to make things easy, no H2S

option one- a single ventral gun and no extra gunner

when carrying a single ventral gun typical load was 1,000 rounds with a .303, it would only be a few hundred with a .50cal, so we shall assume the RAF's being it's typical self and gives this lanc a .303 and 1,000 rounds- all up weight roughly 90lbs including mount and ammo bin- for such a tiny amount the bomb load would not be adjusted

option two- a single gun plus extra gunner

carrying an extra gunner was very rare but a gunner plus 'chute weighs exactly 200lbs according to the RAF figures of the day, so this option has a hefty 290lbs to it's name

option 3- FN.64 turret and no extra gunner

this option would completely dissallow the H2S system so take that into consideration. weight of turret= 122lbs, two .303s= 44lbs and the standard 750rpg= 99.5lbs giving a total weight of 265.5 lbs- that's less than the option with a single gun and gunner! but does mean no H2S and one gunner manning two turrets (which is what the RAF did when the FN.64 was carried

option 4- can you guess what it is yet? yes, FN.64 turret plus extra gunner

all up weight- 465.5lbs, and for a weight like this the payload would be reduced by 500lbs, but it's not like the lanc would miss it, but this option would again dissallow H2S, but is it needed by day?

also bear in mind as this lanc has a twin .50cal rear turret you've saved roughly 150lbs over the quad .303 turrets, so if you take away 150lbs from each of the above options _that_ will be the actual weight penalty............

and i can now see Adler and FB wondering how this will effect the centre of gravity, well i can't exactly work it out myself however i am looking at loading charts giving the moments and the lanc has travel limits of 41-60.6 inches aft of the datum point, which looking at some of the moments any of the options above will suffice, and if not there are, as in any aircraft, hundreds of other things you can adjust to get the correct loadings............

ummm, I've spent so long doing this i can't actually remember if there's anything else that was being questioned? if there is ask and you may receive........

so given those figures it's up to make up your own mind as to which you think was the best option, remembering any weight increase will cost you fuel economy........

lastly my sources- with the exception of the weight of the .50cal rounds all my figures are from actual RAF sources and would have been exactly the same figures the crews would have used to work out loadings in their aircraft so they are the gospel, however bear in mind i'm only 16 and am simply messing round with figures so it's up to you how you see the data, any input on what I've done here will be welcomed, as long as it's reasonable


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 18, 2006)

Kiwi has posted some excellent info in the Lancaster Turret thread.


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 18, 2006)

And full specs for the Bolton Paul .50 cal type D have been posted in it.

Of note for Lanc
Armament: Two 12.7 mm (0.5 in) Browning No.2 Mk.II guns 
Ammunition: 1,515 rounds per gun 

Empty: 200 kg (440 lb) 
Armed: 249 kg (548 lb) 
Weight of guns: 33 kg (72 1/2 lb) 
Weight of ammunition: 415 kg (914 lb) 

take the empty 440 lb and add 72.5 for guns = 512. lb.

the disparity between 512.5 and 548 = 35.5 pounds worth of ammunition in the rails and and feed system within the turret itself.

914 lb - 35.5 = 878.5 lb for the ammunition outside the turret.

So

548 lbs + 914 lbs + 200 Lbs (Gunner) = *1,662 lbs*

Add about 50 lbs for tracking etc and about 50 lbs for the two feed motors and we are stacking up at 1,762 lbs.

The FN.20 had an all up weight including gunner of 1,370 lbs (I have tacked on an extra 20 as the figures shown in the other thread are for a 180 lb gunner)

Now we have a disparity in weight of 392 pounds.

However it must be noted I am still digging out the specs on the Rose Rice turret, as the BP was only fitted to Halifaxs' and post war Lincolns.

Also the thinking within the bosses of the RAf was that with good depression angle on the rear turret as opposed to the B-17 rear turret, even daylight attacks hardly justified a lower turret as the number of planes involved and superior range of the .50 would drive off most belly attack flight proflies.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 19, 2006)

hence i didn't use that turret data, as interesting as it is, because it wasn't fitted to lancs, which is the plane we're talking about..............


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 19, 2006)

Ok then, maybe this will clear it up a bit.

350 rounds per gun, contained within the turret, and 24 seconds of firing time.


Another very useful item of equipment designed and produced by Rose Brothers was the oxygen economiser. Oxygen was stored under pressure in the aircraft in metal cylinders and when in use quite a lot went to waste, the only part used being that breathed in by the crew member. The economiser was a rectangular container containing about the amount of oxygen needed for one breath. It filled, then a valve closed off the supply and only opened after the crew member had emptied it by breathing in, via his oxygen mask. 

Sir Arthur Harris was quoted as saying – "Later in the war, Roses, that is Alfred Rose himself, Curtis the designer and Fred the foreman – were again to pull us out of the soup with a beautifully designed and made 0.5inch turret" – this was the famous "Rose Turret", an example of which can be seen at the Royal Aircraft Museum at Hendon. A slightly different version of the story suggests that Air Vice-Marshal Sir Edward Rice and Alfred Rose collaborated on the design of the new turret. “Despite a lack of official interest”, Rice went ahead and helped Rose with the winning design, the Air Ministry placing an initial production order for the turret in June 1943. Work had started on the design and development of the turret on late 1943/early 1944. Production began in 1944 after a few prototypes had been tested and modified, mainly to eliminate vibration. Ten turrets were produced by June 1944 after which production was steadily improved. Although over seven thousand Lancaster bombers were built during the war, most were equipped with Frazer-Nash hydraulically operated tail turrets, fitted with four .303 calibre machine guns. Only four hundred were fitted with Rose turrets. This might not seem many but it was a fantastic achievement in such a short time, especially by a firm that, prior to the war, had not been involved in this type of work. . Rose Brothers developed a strong relationship with the personnel of RAF Hemswell (just east of Gainsborough and 14.5 miles north of Lincoln) and it was here that the Rose turret was fitted to the Lancasters of No 1 Group, Bomber Command, in November 1944. Rose Brothers developed a strong relationship with the personnel of RAF Hemswell (just east of Gainsborough and 14.5 miles north of Lincoln) and it was here that the Rose turret was fitted to the Lancasters of No 1 Group, Bomber Command, in November 1944.

The men and women who built the Rose Turret. Photograph taken at Gainsborough on 6th March 1945. 
The Rose Turret fitted to a Lancaster bomber. 

The turret contained twin mounted 0.5” Browning Automatic machine guns, three hundred and fifty rounds per gun, with an effective range of six hundred and fifty yards. The heavy guns were for daylight use, as the limited visibility at night made their longer range ineffective compared to the more rapid fire of the .303 Brownings. The heavy guns were for daylight use, as the limited visibility at night made their longer range ineffective compared to the more rapid fire of the .303 Brownings. It used a Barr Stroud Mk IIIA reflector sight with a traverse of +/- 94 degrees, elevation 49 degrees and a depression of 59 degrees and allowed for a total firing time of 24 seconds, compared with the 130 seconds firing time for the four-gun Frazer-Nash turret). It was fully hydraulically operated, and therefore easily manoeuvrable, Should the plane be damaged and the order to bale out given, all the rear gunner had to do was to fall through the hole in which his gun manoeuvred. This in itself saved many lives. Ted Beswick of the heavy machine shop at Gainsborough flew in a Rose turret as rear gunner - 

“It had more room than in other types and it was possible to wear a back type parachute and so bale out of the turret. It was, however, very cold due to the cut-away Perspex, which left the turret completely open. This made for better vision but it was necessary to wear four pairs of gloves. One also had to be careful when entering the turret not to catch one of the control rods with the right foot, causing turret rotation. The turret was controlled by grasping a control box with both hands (this was about four inches square and set at about eye level) and also carried the reflector sight and firing button. By moving the control to the left, the turret swung to the left, and so on. Ammunition was stored in side the rear of the turret in tanks. In other makes of rear turret, the ammunition was stored in the fuselage and fed via the bottom of the turret.

In front of the turret was another knob which could be used to rotate the turret, known as the search lever. It was used when searching for fighters, as this was less tiring than stretching up all the time operating both the guns and the turret. The turret could also be operated by hand if motors or hydraulics failed”.

Lancaster bomber 

A key part of the Rose turret mechanism was the valve chest. This facilitated a rapid change in the direction that the guns pointed by instantly altering the flow of oil in the hydraulic system. The turret and guns were lined up instantly wherever the sights were pointed. The gun turrets were tested at the Rose factory and some of the men who worked on these guns also installed them in the aircraft. 

The Rose turret was only used by Nos. 83, 101, 153 and 170 Squadrons of No. 1 Bomber Group from the middle of 1944 onwards. Frazer-Nash later developed the F.N.82 turret which was also fitted with twin 12.7 mm (0.50 in) Browning machine-guns and equipped the Lancaster Mk VII.

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

It is believed that Rose also supplied hand-operated dorsal turret gun mountings for a small number of “special transport” (troop carrying) versions of the Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle medium bomber that were transferred to the Soviet Union in 1943/44.

Rose’s links with RAF Scampton were almost as close as with RAF Hemswell and Guy Gibson, Leonard Cheshire and others were frequent visitors to the Albion Works. Gainsborough also made parts for the Lancasters that carried out the Dam Buster raid. The story of this is told in length by Augustus Muir in his chapter on “Equipping the Services”. After the raid, Gainsborough was visited by Guy Gibson and a number of the aircrew, complete with their new medals.

(Of the 133 aircrew who went on the raid, 53 were killed and three bailed out to be made POWs. Of the surviving aircrew thirty-three were decorated at Buckingham Palace on 22 June, with Wing Commander Gibson awarded the Victoria Cross. In total there was one VC, five DSOs, ten DFCs and four bars, twelve DFMs and two CGMs).

Augustus Muir also tells the remarkable story of how Alfred Rose responded to an unexpected request from the Air Ministry, the result of which was that, in a new ‘dispersed’ factory in the village of Saxilby the site for which was found, buildings erected, machinery put in, electricity, water supplies and drainage laid on and roads built, all within little more than 30 weeks – a new navigation instrument,an air position indicator that allowed navigators to read off their positioning degrees and minutes, described as “the most efficient type then in use”, was produced. 

This device continued to be made at Saxilby after the war. Mrs Plummer, who had joined the company at its opening in April 1943, was responsible for the welfare of the well over 100 women who worked in the factory when it was on full production. Finding digs for them all in Saxilby was quite a task.

This illustration is of what is believed to be the type of instrument for which Saxilby was first set up to manufacture. Eric Foxley has kindly given permission to use this image from his website. We understand that the instrument now resides at Bletchley Park (of Enigma code-breaking fame). 


This unit is from UK wartime aircraft, and computed an aircraft's latitude and longitude using an entirely mechanical (analogue) process, involving integration, sines and cosines. The current speed and direction were fed in on servo-motors on the right of this photograph. The speed was split mechanically into sine and cosine components for latitude and longitude changes, and integrated to give the current position. The longitude calculation also needed an inverse "cosine" component (longitude changes more quickly nearer the poles proportional to the cosine of the latitude). The mechanical process would, of course, have failed near the north or south poles.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 19, 2006)

Great Post!!!!


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 19, 2006)

Yes indeed, that was interesting.


----------



## Gnomey (Aug 22, 2006)

Good stuff!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 23, 2006)

Indeed very intersting.


----------



## lonestarman63 (Aug 28, 2006)

because if we built more it would have cost so much more in men supplys and time , so i do not even no why the b 24 is here with the 17 or the lanc


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 29, 2006)

HUH?


----------



## lonestarman63 (Aug 29, 2006)

meaning the b 24 cost so much before it even saw action between the cost to get it ready and loss's in training and all it  was better for the axis powers


----------



## lonestarman63 (Aug 29, 2006)

Statistcal comparisons done at loss rate per sortie shows that the b 17 had a 35 % longer combat life than the b 24
The b 24 was the most extravagant killer of any airplane AAF from pearl to sept of 44 the b 24 accdents in the US resulted in 2188 deaths in the first 9 months of 1944 b24 did 6% total flying in the U S but had 26% of all death , They flew 5% less than the b 17 and had 105 % more deaths and 85% more wreaks
Had the b 24 been as good as the b 17 from pearl to sept of 1944 we would have had 230 aircraft 904 more airmen and saved about 60,000,000 that is a lot of money and crews 
so i say there is a day and night between the 2 planes
__________________


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 29, 2006)

It still did an excellent job of dropping iron bombs down on the Germans....


----------



## bomber (Aug 29, 2006)

But surely if you're weighing the merits up of differing bombers then as well as the variation / quantity of loadout and the bombers range, mustn't one also compare the ability of the bomber to brings it's crew back home safely ?


----------



## plan_D (Aug 29, 2006)

Survivability has been brought into the equation before. The B-17 has been noted as the highest scorer in the catergory of survivability, but this does not rate it above the other two bombers when the other two are equal or superior to the B-17 in all other aspects. 

While the _Liberator_ cost more American lives, it also dropped more tonnage on Europe and Asia than the B-17 and Lancaster without even bringing it's other duties into account. 

Had the B-24 airframe been as strong as the B-17, the U.S wouldn't have been able to _finish_ one every hour.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 29, 2006)

Exactly, the B-24 was an excillent bomber either way. Its good quantities outweighed its bad ones. Was it the best bomber. By far no. Did it get the job done? Hell yeah.


----------



## bomber (Aug 29, 2006)

Interesting.... I suppose it's from which direction you're looking at it from...

Time/Cost/Quality are the 3 variables of any project...Any project manager worth his salt will disscuse with the stakeholders the order of importance to them.. Now it seems it's being said that they replied...

"Get us the planes (Time), bugger the expence (Cost), just make em fly and drop their bombs over the target (Quality)

Ok that's a simplistic statement, and I don't wish to offend but from a purely senior management perspective that very well might just cover it...

If however I was young man with the prospect of having to climb into one I might very well answer the same question "Make it tough enough to get me there, bomb the target and get home (Quality), bugger the expence (Cost) and deliver ? Oh there's no rush (Time)"

Best bomber.. It all depends ?

regards

Simon


----------



## Wildcat (Aug 29, 2006)

lonestarman63 said:


> meaning the b 24 cost so much before it even saw action between the cost to get it ready and loss's in training and all it


High training accidents are always bound to happen when young, inexperianced kids are put behind the controls of a huge and powerful four engine heavy. This didn't make it a bad bomber though.



lonestarman63 said:


> was better for the axis powers


Well I reckon many a German civilian, soldier or U Boat crew on the recieving end might disagree, same could be said for the Japanese getting blasted on some hell hole in the Pacific.


----------



## bomber (Aug 29, 2006)

It might not make it a bad bomber, but it might make it an unforgiving plane, and if you just happen to know you're going to order countless young men into it.... what would that mean ?

I think there has to be some relationship between survivability and what makes a good bomber...

To me it's getting there, dropping, getting back and then doing it again the next day... Somehow I think it loses some points just getting there and dropping...

Still, it's all relative... 

regards

Simon


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 29, 2006)

lonestarman63 said:


> Statistcal comparisons done at loss rate per sortie shows that the b 17 had a 35 % longer combat life than the b 24
> The b 24 was the most extravagant killer of any airplane AAF from pearl to sept of 44 the b 24 accdents in the US resulted in 2188 deaths in the first 9 months of 1944 b24 did 6% total flying in the U S but had 26% of all death , They flew 5% less than the b 17 and had 105 % more deaths and 85% more wreaks
> Had the b 24 been as good as the b 17 from pearl to sept of 1944 we would have had 230 aircraft 904 more airmen and saved about 60,000,000 that is a lot of money and crews
> so i say there is a day and night between the 2 planes
> __________________


Your numbers are skewed - there were also 5,000 more B-24s built and they flew way more total sorties than the B-17, both in training and combat. Of course its going to have a higher accident rate...


----------



## bomber (Aug 29, 2006)

The total numbers dont matter as he's using percentages and type..

So if you had 1 x B17 and 1 x B24

The B17 would last 35% longer in a combat environment than a B24..

And so on with those percenatges...


----------



## lonestarman63 (Aug 29, 2006)

The real night and day comes from the B 17 and the B 24 can compare that , and as i study and read the b 17 was by far the better warbird some of the reasons , i think are worth looking at.
The b 17 easier to maintain and there for more available for combat
The b 17 spent half as much time in the modification centers thus read for action in shorter time
b 17 combat sorties versus the b24,results in 40 % savings in personnel and material
Statistcal comparisons done at loss rate per sortie shows that the b 17 had a 35 % longer combat life than the b 24
if the B 17 was produced in the numbers of the B 24 the amount of plane for combat would have been a lot better


----------



## plan_D (Aug 29, 2006)

bomber, if the production team looked solely at what the crew wanted in a plane then nothing would get built. If Consolidated aimed to build the B-24 for suvivability the production run would be much lower than it actually was because armour takes more time to build. As harsh as it sounds, in a war like World War II, no one cares what the man on the ground wants. The country wants as much firepower raining down on the enemy as possible. The U.S had the manpower to throw everything in gung-ho, there was no time for precision and safety. 

_"if the B 17 was produced in the numbers of the B 24 the amount of plane for combat would have been a lot better"_

You've completely missed the point. The B-17 took longer to build than the B-24! If the U.S would have built B-17s instead of B-24s, there'd be less bombers coming off the production lines. 

The B-24 dropped more tonnage on Europe and Asia than the B-17. The B-24 sunk more tonnage than the B-17. There were more B-24s in action than the B-17. 

The U.S wanted to win the war, and to win the war they need to bring all their ordnance down on Germany. The B-24 carried more of the fire to Germany than the B-17 did.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 29, 2006)

bomber said:


> The total numbers dont matter as he's using percentages and type..
> 
> So if you had 1 x B17 and 1 x B24
> 
> ...



He didn't indicate that - he came up with a 35% higher combat life but didn't indicate what that was based on. Sorties? Missions? Aircraft numbers (B-17 vs. B-24) 



lonestarman63 said:


> The real night and day comes from the B 17 and the B 24 can compare that , and as i study and read the b 17 was by far the better warbird some of the reasons , i think are worth looking at.
> The b 17 easier to maintain and there for more available for combat
> The b 17 spent half as much time in the modification centers thus read for action in shorter time
> b 17 combat sorties versus the b24,results in 40 % savings in personnel and material
> ...



There is no doubt the B-17 was the betting flying aircraft but I'd like to know where you're getting your numbers from. As far as the B-17 being easier to maintain, I'd like to know where you're getting that from as well.. Both aircraft operated the same, the B-24 was a bit more complicated becuase of the powered turrets, but as far as maintainability, there shouldn't be much of a difference.



plan_D said:


> The U.S wanted to win the war, and to win the war they need to bring all their ordnance down on Germany. The B-24 carried more of the fire to Germany than the B-17 did.


BINGO!

The table below summarizes all losses in the ETO during the war:

Aircraft Type Number Lost 
B-17 4,754 
B-24 2,112 
P-47 1,043 
P-38 451 
P-51 2,201 
Total 10,561 

These figures came from the Army's statistical data files on losses. Now this does not include any of the other type medium aircraft and light aircraft (B-25, B-26, L-4, AT-6 etc), the 9th, 12th and 11th tactical Air Force losses and other commands. It is now easy to see how over 30,000 American airmen were POWs of the European Axis during the war.



Here's some great info...
Maximum reported B-17 B-24 bomb loads - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Below is a chart - factor in the total numbers of aircraft built (B-17 vs. B-24) and the B-24 isn't as bad as made out to be....

BTW - My uncle was in a B-24 crash, the only survivor of an 11 man crew. He always said that training of the crew was the cause of his mishap (the pilot had an engine failing, he shut down the wrong engine...


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 29, 2006)

He should go back to the debate we had earlier this year regarding the production rates of the Lanc vs B24. By the end of 1944, we were building enough B24's every few day's to cover the "statistical" differential in loss's. And thats assuming his figures are correct;y interpreted.

And of course he didnt look at the payload vs range issue in the PTO between the -24 and -17.

Nor that the -24 was superior to the -17 in antisubmarine operations.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 29, 2006)

Yep! And in the training mishaps you would also have to look into flight hours and compare them. Another factor during the training is instrument flying and which aircraft did more....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 29, 2006)

bomber said:


> that very well might just cover it...
> 
> If however I was young man with the prospect of having to climb into one I might very well answer the same question "Make it tough enough to get me there, bomb the target and get home (Quality), bugger the expence (Cost) and deliver ? Oh there's no rush (Time)"



As someone who has crewed aircraft into combat I can say I did not care about the cost or how easy it was to make an aircraft as long as did its job and got me home.

As a whole the B-24 got the job done and got its crews home. Yes she was shot down but what aircraft was not shot down over the Reich?


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 29, 2006)

I have an announcement to make.

After reading more carefully the USSBS, they make a point of saying that the US 1000 and 2000 pounder bombs were not capable of causing destructive damage to many industrial type tools and machinery. And it seems only the brit 4000 pounders were capable of doing lasting damage.

Therefore, since the -17 and -24 couldnt carry those bombs....... I will have to admit the Lanc would take a notch up over the -24 as best bomber in the ETO.

But, the -24 is still better than the Lanc in the PTO since there werent any industrial targets requiring a bomb like that.


----------



## lonestarman63 (Aug 29, 2006)

USA, AAF Chief Unit Traing Division , Assistant Cheif of Staff. Training . Letter to AC/AS Training dated 13 NOV 1944 The b 24 was the most extravagant killer of any airplane AAF from pearl to sept of 44 the b 24 accdents in the US resulted in 2188 deaths in the first 9 months of 1944 b24 did 6% total flying in the U S but had 26% of all death , They flew 5% less than the b 17 and had 105 % more deaths and 85% more wreaks
Had the b 24 been as good as the b 17 from pearl to sept of 1944 we would have had 230 aircraft 904 more airmen and saved about 60,000,000 that is a lot of money and crews 
8)


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 29, 2006)

lonestarman63 said:


> USA, AAF Chief Unit Traing Division , Assistant Cheif of Staff. Training . Letter to AC/AS Training dated 13 NOV 1944 The b 24 was the most extravagant killer of any airplane AAF from pearl to sept of 44 the b 24 accdents in the US resulted in 2188 deaths in the first 9 months of 1944 b24 did 6% total flying in the U S but had 26% of all death , They flew 5% less than the b 17 and had 105 % more deaths and 85% more wreaks
> Had the b 24 been as good as the b 17 from pearl to sept of 1944 we would have had 230 aircraft 904 more airmen and saved about 60,000,000 that is a lot of money and crews
> 8)



1) The B17's were withdrawn from service in the PTO in late 1942 because they couldnt do the job.

2) 230 B24's was 1 week output in Nov 1944. Big deal.

3) 904 airmen? We were losing that number in combat every week. Whats a few more from training accidents.

4) $60,000,000 was a drop in the bucket for a war that was costing billions every year.


----------



## lonestarman63 (Aug 29, 2006)

8) The b 17 easier to maintain and there for more available for combat
The b 17 spent half as much time in the modification centers thus read for action in shorter time
b 17 combat sorties versus the b24,results in 40 % savings in personnel and material
Statistcal comparisons done at loss rate per sortie shows that the b 17 had a 35 % longer combat life than the b 24
if the B 17 was produced in the numbers of the B 24 the amount of plane for combat would have been a lot better8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 29, 2006)

lonestarman63 said:


> 8) The b 17 easier to maintain and there for more available for combat


 Are you quoting General Craig (I bet he worked on a lot of B-17s, Generals are really good at engine changes, especially in the middle of the night) or a maintenance guy who actually worked on the aircraft because I could assure you that if the -17 was easier to maintain it was only marginal..


lonestarman63 said:


> The b 17 spent half as much time in the modification centers thus read for action in shorter time


 Agree but the 24 was built quicker and outpaced the -17 in production by 1944


lonestarman63 said:


> b 17 combat sorties versus the b24,results in 40 % savings in personnel and material
> Statistcal comparisons done at loss rate per sortie shows that the b 17 had a 35 % longer combat life than the b 24
> if the B 17 was produced in the numbers of the B 24 the amount of plane for combat would have been a lot better8)


You given no proof of that - I shown numbers that indicate even with the higher accident rate, the -17 was only marginally safer than the B-24, and the B-17 wasn't even used in the Pacific!!! I think someone needs to do some homework!!!


----------



## lonestarman63 (Aug 29, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> 1) The B17's were withdrawn from service in the PTO in late 1942 because they couldnt do the job.
> 
> 2) 230 B24's was 1 week output in Nov 1944. Big deal.
> 
> ...




1)That was just in the Us before they got to operations 

2)904 airmen was the highest of any Us aircraft .

3) $60,000,000 is stil a lot of resoures no matter how you slice it 

4) we were talking about ETO8)


----------



## lonestarman63 (Aug 29, 2006)

they were used in the pacific early on till late 42


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 29, 2006)

*READ THIS PLEASE!*

The B-24 was phased out of the AAF during December 1945; evidently maintenance costs were high. *A WWII B-17, B-24 mechanic told me that the B-24 was easier to work on* because its tricycle landing gear gave it a level ground attitude. The AAF, then USAF, kept the B-17 in squadron service until 1956; it was evidently still used as a bomber during 1948, 49 when the movie Twelve O’Clock High was filmed, with AF active duty B-17s being used during filming. In the Korean War the B-17 served in SAR and recce units. The navy used their B-24/PB4Y-1s until at least 1953.

B-17 and B-24 Discourse


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 29, 2006)

lonestarman63 said:


> they were used in the pacific early on till late 42


And were phased out becuase they didn't have the range or bombload to complete the required mission in the Pacific...


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 29, 2006)

I'LL wager there are more craters out there made by T6s and Stearmans then 904


----------



## lonestarman63 (Aug 29, 2006)

they were phased out because of range ,not saying were not , i was talking about the ETO 8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 29, 2006)

lonestarman63 said:


> 8) The b 17 easier to maintain and there for more available for combat
> The b 17 spent half as much time in the modification centers thus read for action in shorter time
> b 17 combat sorties versus the b24,results in 40 % savings in personnel and material
> Statistcal comparisons done at loss rate per sortie shows that the b 17 had a 35 % longer combat life than the b 24
> if the B 17 was produced in the numbers of the B 24 the amount of plane for combat would have been a lot better8)


 And I see you're basing this on this report....

https://research.au.af.mil/papers/ay1997/acsc/97-0609C.pdf#search="B-17 vs B-24 losses"

But yet look What Hap Arnold said...

Briefly, the situation is this: The B-17 is a fine, heavy bomber which has been lavishly built up by the Press with the result, we believe, that not only the public but the personnel in the Army Air Forces think of it as an airplane far superior to any other heavy bomber. At the same time, our industry is just beginning to put out large numbers of B-24’s. Even in its condition today, without the (lower) turret, which may be available in quantity by the first of the year, the B-24 has shown up in proving ground tests as a very fine heavy bomber with a greater range that the B-17.

Brereton has used this same B-24 with German and Italian opposition and has had a remarkable degree of success in air combat. Likewise, Butler’s small B-24 unit has been highly successful against the Japs in the Aleutians. It is unfortunate at this time that neither of those theaters has had the publicity enjoyed by the B-17 in the United Kingdom. The net result is a false public impression that the B-17 is a fighting airplane far superior to any other heavy bomber in the world, because of the briefness of B-24 combat experiences and lack of publicity for its successes in battle.

We find ourselves faced with what may be a real and acute problem in psychology and in leadership.

—Gen H. H. Arnold


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 29, 2006)

lonestarman63 said:


> they were phased out because of range ,not saying were not , i was talking about the ETO 8)


OK - My error


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 29, 2006)

There is no argument the B-17 was the betting flying aircraft. The B-24 had the advantage in range and bomb load. The whole purpose was to deliver bombs to the target and a "pick-up truck" was needed to to that and that is why the B-24 was produced in the quantity. The report I posted gives a very good analysis of the aircraft showing concerns by members of the 8th AF with regards to the B-24. At the same time they adjusted well in the Pacific and with the RAF. I do rate the B-17 a betting flying aircraft, I rate the B-24 as the betting bombing platform and that's what the whole ball game was about.

Battle damge - the B-17 takes it. Longevity - also to the B-17.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 29, 2006)

The reason so many B24's were in the modification centers was because *THEY WERE BEING BUILT SO FAST AND IN SUCH NUMBERS FOR SO MANY END USERS THAT THEY HAD TO BE MODIFIED TO TAKE THE LATEST AND GREATEST MODIFICATIONS!*


----------



## Glider (Aug 29, 2006)

Good article FJ (where do you find them?) I found it interesting that the US believed the Ju89 to be better than the early B17 as a reason for developing the B24.
Personally I have no idea where they got that idea from.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 29, 2006)

Glider said:


> Good article FJ (where do you find them?) I found it interesting that the US believed the Ju89 to be better than the early B17 as a reason for developing the B24.
> Personally I have no idea where they got that idea from.


Thanks! Gotta love the Internet! Can you believe that? I think it was based on over-exaggerated intelligence.


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 30, 2006)

Ask a ball turret gunner.

On the -17 the turret was hung on a wire lowered down into position after the gunner was in, and if he needed to get out it was a shyte-fight all the way. If his ammo needed resupply, someone (waist gunner or radio op normally) had to do it for him. (don't know about the later models)

On the -24, he just disengaged and rotated himself to get out. 

The significant problem for the -24 was its thin wing, making it more prone to battle damage than the -17's, most failures occuring between the fuselage and the inner engine due to loadings / damage.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 30, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I have an announcement to make.
> 
> After reading more carefully the USSBS, they make a point of saying that the US 1000 and 2000 pounder bombs were not capable of causing destructive damage to many industrial type tools and machinery. And it seems only the brit 4000 pounders were capable of doing lasting damage.
> 
> Therefore, since the -17 and -24 couldnt carry those bombs....... I will have to admit the Lanc would take a notch up over the -24 as best bomber in the ETO.



It took you this long to finally figure out what every one else allready knew all along.

Oh and by the way the Lanc was a better bomber period than the B-24.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 30, 2006)

k9kiwi said:


> Ask a ball turret gunner.
> 
> On the -17 the turret was hung on a wire lowered down into position after the gunner was in, and if he needed to get out it was a shyte-fight all the way. If his ammo needed resupply, someone (waist gunner or radio op normally) had to do it for him. (don't know about the later models)
> 
> On the -24, he just disengaged and rotated himself to get out.



Huh? The B-17 turret is not on a wire. The whole gantry that holds it position goes all the way to the roof. That is why it needed to be dropped out of the airplane before a wheels up landing or you would almost surely break the back of the airplane. Take a look and see how it is attached:

Van Gilder Aviation Photography, B-17 Walkthrough


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 30, 2006)

Excellent pics Evan. I wouldn't have liked to have been the gunner in the ball turret... a touch of claustrophobia would give me the screaming heeby jeebies..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 30, 2006)

evangilder said:


> Huh? The B-17 turret is not on a wire. The whole gantry that holds it position goes all the way to the roof. That is why it needed to be dropped out of the airplane before a wheels up landing or you would almost surely break the back of the airplane. Take a look and see how it is attached:
> 
> Van Gilder Aviation Photography, B-17 Walkthrough


I mentioned this before....

When I worked at an aircraft salvage yard back in the late 1970s we had one on a scaffold that was functional (without guns). If I remember I thought there was a means to either jettison the whole ball or have part of it split so the gunner could egress (I think this would be only valid with very small folks as it was impossible to wear a parachute while in the turret). Eric, do you know if this was the case? I'm 5'9" and could not get fully inside the thing.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 30, 2006)

If memory serves correctly, the maximum height of a ball turret gunner was 5' 4". The ball could be completely jettisoned with a tool kit that is still carried in some of the survivors. It was hydraulically "raised and lowered" but it could not be fully retracted into the belly of the aircraft. For the gunner to get in or out, the guns had to be pointed straight down so that the hatch at the back of the ball could be opened. If it jammed, the gunner was stuck.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 30, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It took you this long to finally figure out what every one else allready knew all along.
> 
> Oh and by the way the Lanc was a better bomber period than the B-24.



Quite the contrary. I simply just dont jump on the badwagon just because everyone else is on it. Lanc (among others) kept saying the Lancaster could the large bombs. *NONE* of you had evidence that they were more effective than the smaller bombs, untill the USSBS provided the evidence.

As for the Lanc in the PTO? We know how the B24 performed there while there is no evidence on how the Lanc actually performed. B24 gets the edge up because it was there.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 30, 2006)

Thanks! I remember something about the thing being able to be jettisoned but couldn't remember if it could be done as a means of escape.


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 30, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> As for the Lanc in the PTO? We know how the B24 performed there while there is no evidence on how the Lanc actually performed. B24 gets the edge up because it was there.



I think that the arguement that the B24 is the better aircraft because it performed well in the PTO is a tad simplistic. I am not sure whether the Lanc did or did not serve in the PTO at all.

To compare aircraft I would say that there must be similar numbers of missions flown, bombs dropped, aircrew returned to base, etc. In this specific instance where there is comparison between B17, B24 and Lancaster, the comparison should be taken in the ETO between early 1942 and VE day.

Unless there are some fairly specific criteria for comparison the thread will degenerate into "the B24 was the best aircraft in the world, ever, because the radio operators seat had 2 inches more leg room and an up and down adjuster"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 30, 2006)

daishi12 said:


> I think that the arguement that the B24 is the better aircraft because it performed well in the PTO is a tad simplistic. I am not sure whether the Lanc did or did not serve in the PTO at all.


The lanc did not serve in the Pacific


daishi12 said:


> To compare aircraft I would say that there must be similar numbers of missions flown, bombs dropped, aircrew returned to base, etc. In this specific instance where there is comparison between B17, B24 and Lancaster, the comparison should be taken in the ETO between early 1942 and VE day.


In fairness the B-24s PTO and CBI (RAF B-24s) should be considered as well. In some instances the missions flown by USAAF, RAF, ad RAAF B-24 crews may have been just as treacherous as the ETO.


daishi12 said:


> Unless there are some fairly specific criteria for comparison the thread will degenerate into "the B24 was the best aircraft in the world, ever, because the radio operators seat had 2 inches more leg room and an up and down adjuster"


That was posted in the earlier threads...


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 30, 2006)

Hi Flyboy, could you please clarify CBI? (sorry haven't been on the forum very long).

I'm not denying that the PTO was as treacherous as the ETO, but in the context of this thread were there is a comparison between 3 aircraft, the comparision must be made where all three aircraft served, i.e. the ETO


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 30, 2006)

daishi12 said:


> Hi Flyboy, could you please clarify CBI? (sorry haven't been on the forum very long).


China, Burma, India


daishi12 said:


> I'm not denying that the PTO was as treacherous as the ETO, but in the context of this thread were there is a comparison between 3 aircraft, the comparision must be made where all three aircraft served, i.e. the ETO


In fairness to the Lanc, you're probably right although the B-24's operations in the Pacific showed capabilities not necessarily exhibited in the ETO.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 30, 2006)

The acid test in my mind would be which one the Luftwaffe preferred to face on equal terms 
If I was a luftwaffe pilot the Lanc would be the prey of choice


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 30, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> China, Burma, India.


Thanks for this.



FLYBOYJ said:


> In fairness to the Lanc, you're probably right although the B-24's operations in the Pacific showed capabilities not necessarily exhibited in the ETO.



I think that in the context of the ETO, the Lanc has it hands down, but in the context of the complete war (including Coastal Command, PTO and Search and Rescue) taking into account numbers produced, the B24 pips the Lanc to the post and is in turn soundly beaten by the B29 as the best super heavy bomber (last comment to keep Syscom happy  )


----------



## evangilder (Aug 30, 2006)

I firmly believe that the B-29 was the best bomber of WWII, but following some of the logic here, the B-29 never had to go against the Luftwaffe...


----------



## Glider (Aug 30, 2006)

The B29 was the best I think that is beyond question. We are after the second best on this thread


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 30, 2006)

evangilder said:


> Huh? The B-17 turret is not on a wire. The whole gantry that holds it position goes all the way to the roof. That is why it needed to be dropped out of the airplane before a wheels up landing or you would almost surely break the back of the airplane. Take a look and see how it is attached:
> 
> Van Gilder Aviation Photography, B-17 Walkthrough




When I was in Paris last week I stopped by the French Military History Museum and they had a B-17 ball turret hanging there. Here are some pics.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 30, 2006)

Good stuff, Chris. I always see them still attached to the airplane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 30, 2006)

Nice Stuff Chris and Eric!


----------



## Hot Space (Aug 30, 2006)

Everytime I see that Ball Turret from the B-17/24 I alway's think it was a left over from Star Wars. It would fit right in with the movie.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 30, 2006)

Hot Space said:


> Everytime I see that Ball Turret from the B-17/24 I alway's think it was a left over from Star Wars. It would fit right in with the movie.


An armed R2D2!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 31, 2006)

Yeah everytime I have seen it before it was on the aircraft. This is the first uninstalled one that I have seen. I thought it was really neat.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 2, 2006)

> The lanc did not serve in the Pacific



True, _however_ one must remember there were plans to operate her out there, trials were undertaken and it was proved it could be done and she served out there without any problems post war, and post war she also undertook all of the roles of the B-24, the sole reason she didn't perform these roles during the war was that there were not enough, despite coastal command crying out for halibags and lancs, lancs even moreso, understandably Bomber command got them all, and syscom, the reason more weren't produced was because they weren't contracted to, the Air ministry folt they were doing fine with what they had, as to them stratigic bombing did not exist outside of the ETO........



> I simply just dont jump on the badwagon just because everyone else is on it. Lanc (among others) kept saying the Lancaster could the large bombs. NONE of you had evidence that they were more effective than the smaller bombs, untill the USSBS provided the evidence.



a bigger explosive charge does more damage than a smaller one... do we need evidence to support that 

but anyway, get back to your little tiff about which was the _3rd_ best bomber, the B-17 or B-24


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 3, 2006)

As for the Lanc did not serve in the Pacific that arguement is hogwash.

The P-38 was not idealy suited for the ETO and was overshadowed by other aircraft in the ETO. Does that make it worse than the P-51D or P-47. No. Hogwash!

So I will reiterate it for syscom:

1. B-29
2. Lancaster (not the B-24!!!)
3.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 3, 2006)

Agree


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 3, 2006)

the thing i don't get is why syscom thinks the inlines would be a problem when his much loved inline engined P-38 did so well out there.........


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 3, 2006)

In the ETO, the Lanc is #1.

In the Pacific, the B24 is #1 (excluding the B32 and B29 of course).

And it is a valid point to make that the Lanc's "expected" performace in the PTO was all theory. The B24 DID fly so we know for a fact what it was capable of in that enviornment. If the B24's were just by the thinnest of margins of being able to handle raids without escort, then the far more weekly armed Lancs would have had a tough time.

Inline engines for fighters cannot be considered as a drawback if the performance is good enough and it could stay out of trouble. For bombers its a drawback simply because of the ranges they needed to fly and the inevitability of damage from flak or fighters. What made the P38 effective with the inlines was its performace margin, extreme range and there were two of them.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 3, 2006)

yes and there's 4 inlines on the lanc? surely 4 is better than two? the merlin was proved to be one of the best, most reliable inlines of the war, the lanchad no problems on 3 engines, infact some lancs on 3 engines _still_ have more power than a B-24, further more post war there were plenty of lancs flying long distances all around the world including in the pacific without engine problems, i think your argument about the lanc's inlines being a dissadvantage is flawed, furthermore what exactly do you suggest beats the lanc in the ETO? and stop bringing the B-32 into the argument? i believe she completed all of 11 missions during the war no? hardly worthy of great note, infact it's less noteworthy than the Mk.VI lanc capable of 350 in a straight line with full payload, and that's in 1943..........


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 3, 2006)

> ...further more post war there were plenty of lancs flying long distances all around the world including in the pacific without engine problems,



Noone was shooting at the Lanc post war.



> i think your argument about the lanc's inlines being a dissadvantage is flawed,



liquid cooled engines are always more prone to failure than air cooled engines, simply because liquid cooled needs a radiator and the engine cast for water passages. All of which introduces a failure path.



> furthermore what exactly do you suggest beats the lanc in the ETO?



Typo on my part. I meant it to be #1 in the ETO



> ...and stop bringing the B-32 into the argument? i believe she completed all of 11 missions during the war no?



I was clarifying my statement to not include the B32 and B29. The B32 was superior to the Lanc, but it didnt matter at that stage since the B29 was already in full production.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 3, 2006)

Syscom how can you absolutely say the B-24 would have been better in the PTO than the Lancaster when the Lancaster did not serve in the PTO?

Therefore based off of that, all that any of us (including yourself) can go off for comparison is the ETO and the capabilities of the aircraft period.

Therefore the Lancaster beats out the B-24.


----------



## k9kiwi (Sep 3, 2006)

Compare the Halifax VI to the B-24 then Syscom.

They were flying in the Far East and Pacific before wars end by at least two RAF Squadrons.


----------



## Bf109_g (Oct 11, 2006)

Hey guys.

I'm going for the Type 464 Provisioning Lancaster, the "Dambuster" model...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 12, 2006)

out of interest why? she could only carry one type of ordinance and didn't have a mid-upper turret? that being said in reality they were little different to normal lancasters because they _were_ normal lancasters, they were modified from normal lancasters and those surviving the raid were returned to their normal configuration and served as bombers for the rest of their lives............


----------



## Bf109_g (Oct 12, 2006)

Hey Lanc.

Well, the Dambuster Lancasters were one-offs, so that is why I chose them...

Thanx.

James.


----------



## lphred (Feb 10, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> B24 of course!



Based on bomb load and range the Lancaster was the best, B 24 next, and the B 17 way behind.



Henk said:


> Maybe, but who had the best defence against fighters. I would rather fly in the B-17 than the other two. The bomb laod of the B-17 was not so bad.
> 
> Henk



Actually the bomb load of the B 17 was abismal compared to the B 24 and Lanchaster. Even with the additional fire power of the later B 17's they still needed fighter escort. Also the B 17 had very limited range compared to the others.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2010)

And there is more to what makes the best bomber than the amount of bombs it can carry.


----------



## Demetrious (Feb 11, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And there is more to what makes the best bomber than the amount of bombs it can carry.



Yes, like defensive armament. The Lancaster had eight .303 caliber peashooters, while the B-24 had ten or twelve .50 caliber machine guns. Combined with the radial engines vs. the in-line engines, the B-24 was unarguably more survivable. 

However the B-17 was even more survivable, with an unparalleled ability to absorb battle damage and a similar defensive armament. Of course, it had a shorter range and less payload. 

You must view heavy bombers on a spectrum, with survivability at one end, and range/payload at the other. The Lancaster is the best at taking a heavy payload the furthest distance, the B-17 is the most capable of surviving in a hostile environment, and the B-24 is right in the middle. 

Now if you consider how the equation changes with night-fighting, you can appreciate how well the Lancaster and the American bombers complimented each other. B-17s and 24s during the day and Lancs at night catered nicely to each aircraft's strong suite, and the absence of any one of those aircraft would have left a shortcoming in the Allied heavy bomber lineups.


----------



## Loiner (Feb 11, 2010)

I think that's a fair assesment Demetrious, the Lanc could carry more but defensive armament was weak with just .303s, but for the night bombing role that was perhaps more sufficient as night-fighters were less of a threat than flak was, whereas the B17 was tougher and much better armed which was a requirement for daytime operations where enemy fighters were inevitable as well as flak. The B24 was arguably better all round than the B17, but was also produced in greater numbers than any other US bomber.

One advantage of the Lancs heavy load carrying capacity was the special raid missions, not just the 'Upkeep' raid on the dams, but the Tall Boys and Grand Slams that were carried on special missions as the only one off weapons that could destroy reinforced 'U' Boat pens and other tough bunkers.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 13, 2010)

This thing about the Lanc being the least survivable keeps cropping up and seems to be just accepted by the statingof it, but why?

What says the Lanc could not absorb battle damage? The accounts I've read say exactly the opposite, that the Lanc could absorb astonishing amounts of damage and return home.

That does not place it in any kind of context against the B-17 and 24, but nor does is it even remotely imply any sort of vulnerability or fragility?

Does anyone have a any info on whether the B-17 or B-24 could climb and maintain formation with the main bomber stream/formation on three engines?

Are there any accounts of either of these types landing on one engine?

I do know there are accounts of the B-17 making it back to base with entire sections of the nose or tail missing, as there are with the Lanc too, but I'm wondering where this impression of fragility is coming from?

The pilots choice would appear to be the Lancaster,I read only yesterday ab account that said the B-17 'lumbered' into the air while the Lanc was eager to go, 'like a racehorse' even when fully laden, and supremely light and easy to fly, whilst also being manouverable (I think we've all heard of Henshaw Rolling it).

Regarding the lightness of control in flight, there was a great quote when a 5 foot 4 woman ATA ferry pilot was told by an RAF officer that he was amazed that she was going to deliver the squadrons new Lancaster single handed, she replied "Well sir, I am not proposing to carry it, I rather hope that it will be carrying me"


----------



## billswagger (Feb 14, 2010)

Waynos said:


> This thing about the Lanc being the least survivable keeps cropping up and seems to be just accepted by the statingof it, but why?
> 
> What says the Lanc could not absorb battle damage? The accounts I've read say exactly the opposite, that the Lanc could absorb astonishing amounts of damage and return home.
> 
> ...



Those are good questions. 

My guess is that its more of an assumption because its not heavily fortified like the B-17 was.
I can understand that larger planes are going to absorb more damage but flak was downing planes left and right regardless. 

I know of one account where a B-17 did fly home on one engine, often two or three.

I might also broach the subject on the B-24 as having a laminar flow wing, if it hasn't already been mentioned. I'm not sure which variant but its worth noting. 

I was reading up on laminar flow and it mentions its discovery well before they ever made a wing intended to have laminar flow. In fact, the P-51s laminar flow may not have been so laminar after all, as defined by what laminar actually means, but it did have a wing that reduced drag over the wing. 


Bill


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 14, 2010)

Waynos said:


> This thing about the Lanc being the least survivable keeps cropping up and seems to be just accepted by the statingof it, but why?
> 
> What says the Lanc could not absorb battle damage? The accounts I've read say exactly the opposite, that the Lanc could absorb astonishing amounts of damage and return home.
> 
> ...



I think over the years there's been a lot of folklore passed down through the generation about both Lancaster and B-17 and IMO based on eyewitness accounts to some of the battle damage attained by both, it was well accepted that the B-17 could sustain more damage. On the outside discussed many times here, there is no doubt that the Lancaster did suffer from somewhat anemic armament, although it was thrusted into some of the most hazardous flying during the air war over Germany. There is no doubt the Lanc was superior in range, speed and bombload when compared to the B-17 or B-24. It's faults lie in its defensive armament, single pilot operation and landing gear configuration. Lastly although maneuverable for its size (btw almost any airplane can be rolled if the same Gs forces and be maintained on the airframe during the maneuver), it was not a high flyer and used in-line engines. Glycol just provided another thing to leak and go wrong with the engine.

In the end it did what it was designed to do - lob a lot of bombs on the enemy.



billswagger said:


> Those are good questions.
> 
> My guess is that its more of an assumption because its not heavily fortified like the B-17 was.
> I can understand that larger planes are going to absorb more damage but flak was downing planes left and right regardless.
> ...



I've always questioned these stories about B-17s (or any 4 engine WW2 bomber) flying on one engine. If even remotely possible it would have to be on one of the inboard engines. Additionally I don't believe any flight manual ever gave parameters on such operations. The only thing I see coming of this is a 4 engine bomber losing 3 engines at altitude and was able to sustain a minimal descent rate to either accomplish an effective landing or bailout.

As far as the B-24. It had a high lift low drag Davis airfoil - long thin and thick, it worked well when all 4 engines were running and it had no holes in it. Loose an engine or put some holes in the wing and now you have a handful.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 15, 2010)

I agree regarding the armament of the Lancaster, a definite achilles heel, though I venture due to the calibre of the guns, rather than the number of them.

I've always found it odd that the RAF chose to delete the belly turrets of its heavy bombers, making them vulnerable to shrage musik, when protoype fighters with fixed guns that could fire up into the belly of an attacking bomber were actually built and flown in Britain in the twenties and thirties!

The single pilot argument is also clear enough, although there was always at least one other crew member capable of taking over from the pilot so it was not not quite as terminal a problem as it might appear.

The Lancasters manouverability did directly contribute to its survivability due to manouvres such as the corkscrew etc which saved many lives and which other bombers, and here's the crucial poin' were not *strong enough* to replicate to anywhere near the same degree.

Which brings me back to the main thrust of my original question, can it actually be quantified in ay way that the B-17 could absorb more battle damage structurally? I would not go so far as to say the Lancaster was stronger than the B-17, but can it be shown that it was weaker?


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 15, 2010)

Waynos said:


> The Lancasters manouverability did directly contribute to its survivability due to manouvres such as the corkscrew etc which saved many lives and which other bombers, and here's the crucial point were not *strong enough* to replicate to anywhere near the same degree.
> 
> Which brings me back to the main thrust of my original question, can it actually be quantified in ay way that the B-17 could absorb more battle damage structurally? I would not go so far as to say the Lancaster was stronger than the B-17, but can it be shown that it was weaker?


Did it though?
How can this survivability-through-manoeuverability be quantified?
Nachtjaegers were hacking Lancasters out of the sky in 1943, surely the corkscrew was just borrowing time?
The only limit on their success against the RAF was their supply of ammunition. Lancasters owed little or nothing to their own structural qualities, the heavily-armed Luftwaffe twins were ripping them open; the RAF owed the survival of their bombing campaign to their own nightfighters.

With both the USAAF and the RAF facing heavily cannon-armed opposition, the point of structural survivability is a largely academic one.

If Lancasters did have ventral turrets, how much better do you think they would have fared against Schrage Muzik-configured nachtjaegers?


----------



## Demetrious (Feb 15, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Did it though?
> With both the USAAF and the RAF facing heavily cannon-armed opposition, the point of structural survivability is a largely academic one.



I'd think that'd make it more, rather then less, important. The AWESOME POWER of cannons has been exaggerated to an almost ludicrous degree sometimes, as well as the supposed weakness of rifle-caliber guns. The accounts of Russian aces on that site where they detail their P-40/39/Hurricane experiences (which we've all probably read by now) explains quite nicely how fast-firing rifle-caliber armament could saw the tails clean off the fuselage given half a chance. (Their big failing in a bomber defense role was reach, and with only single/mounted guns, power became more of an issue.) 

Also, while it undoubtedly can be attacked as anecdotal evidence, the pictures we've all seen of B-17s quite literally blown in half that still came home- with their trained and experienced aircrews- would seem to indicate that extreme structural survivability could save you from cannon fire. Even if those cannons totaled the aircraft, the truly valuable thing was that your experienced aircrew made it back. The Japanese learned that lesson the hard way- while they still had plenty of aircraft after the initial huge battles of the war, all their trained and experienced pilots had been killed, and they would never replace those losses.

Even if greater structural strength only saved 20% of cannon-struck bombers that might have otherwise not returned, I'd still consider it significant.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 15, 2010)

Waynos said:


> The single pilot argument is also clear enough, although there was always at least one other crew member capable of taking over from the pilot so it was not not quite as terminal a problem as it might appear.


The point there is that second crewmember going to be proficient enough to perform in the same capacity as the assigned pilot? Additionally the second crewmember isn't along side the pilot the whole time, sharing the workload and relieving some of the operational stress. Lastly that's where the extra set of eyes come into play.


Waynos said:


> The Lancasters manouverability did directly contribute to its survivability due to manouvres such as the corkscrew etc which saved many lives and which other bombers, and here's the crucial poin' were not *strong enough* to replicate to anywhere near the same degree.
> 
> Which brings me back to the main thrust of my original question, can it actually be quantified in ay way that the B-17 could absorb more battle damage structurally? I would not go so far as to say the Lancaster was stronger than the B-17, but can it be shown that it was weaker?


 In the end I think it would be a matter of where and when the damage to the aircraft occurred and how absorbed. There is no doubt that a radial engine will out survive and inline. Additionally one would have to look at how the aircraft performs with engines out and parts of the airframe shot away. As mentioned earlier the B-24 was a handful when one or more engines were gone or if there was damage to the wings. I've heard of stores (and seen photos) where pieces of B-17s were shot away and the pilots saw little or no change in performance.


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 15, 2010)

Demetrious said:


> Even if greater structural strength only saved 20% of cannon-struck bombers that might have otherwise not returned, I'd still consider it significant.


Don't misunderstand me
my money's on the B-17, the same pics of which you speak, of B-17s returning with more bits missing than present and of course the durability factor of the radial over the inline, do it for me


----------



## Waynos (Feb 15, 2010)

I think you may be overstating the case for the 'nachtjaegers' a little Colin. From late 41 whewn ops began to late 43 when tactics changed to 'wild boar' and 'tame boar' and the advent of better radar control, the Lancaster had an excellent survival rate with several ops concluding without loss at all. From late 43 on though, Bomber Command classed loss rates as serious when they reached 8%, that means 92% of aircraft, on average, got back. Or about 20-30 bombers from raids of around 500+




> How can this survivability-through-manoeuverability be quantified?



Only in the statements from Lancaster crews that were caught in a cone of searchlights feeling like 'the last turkey in the shop' that broke free by virtue of the corkscrew and got home. At least it worked for them, which I suppose is all that matters from their perspective. I have also been looking for a passage I read, alas without luck, where a German pilot talks of the difficulty in getting a good shooting position on a corkscrewing Lancaster, in the dark of course, and many a pilot saved himself and his crew after contact with an NF by virtue of this.

Of course there is no statistical evidence, that I know of, that compares the number of attacks with those completed successfully or those aborted because of a corkscrew. But neither is it the case that a Lanc, once seen, was as good as shot down. So long as he had seen the enemy of course, which is where shrage musik was so effective.



> If Lancasters did have ventral turrets, how much better do you think they would have fared against Schrage Muzik-configured nachtjaegers?



Quite a lot better IMO. a few of the NF's would be shot down and even where they weren't, there's nothing like someone shooting back at you to spoil your aim.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 15, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The point there is that second crewmember going to be proficient enough to perform in the same capacity as the assigned pilot? Additionally the second crewmember isn't along side the pilot the whole time, sharing the workload and relieving some of the operational stress. Lastly that's where the extra set of eyes come into play.
> In the end I think it would be a matter of where and when the damage to the aircraft occurred and how absorbed. There is no doubt that a radial engine will out survive and inline. Additionally one would have to look at how the aircraft performs with engines out and parts of the airframe shot away. As mentioned earlier the B-24 was a handful when one or more engines were gone or if there was damage to the wings. I've heard of stores (and seen photos) where pieces of B-17s were shot away and the pilots saw little or no change in performance.



I agree, I just wanted to point out that there was an alternative as these crew members would be able to fly and land the lanc so survival was a possibility. It is no substitute for having two pilots though.

Another thought occurs. In one way (and on rare occasions) might the RAF way have been better? In the Lanc a 'semi trained' pilot could climb into the cockpit if the pilot was hit, and take the plane home, but in a direct hit on a B-17 cockpit that incapacitates both pilots, what would happen?

I dont think the durability of a radial engine is particularly relevant for a four engined plane that can fly quite happily on two, especially two of the most reliable and durable inlines in history.

I believe the biggest failing in the Lancaster was the aforementioned lack of a belly turret, which was the result of official policy decisions as Avro had designed it with one. I don't think it can be faulted in any other area, except for the only toilet being right at the back, meaning the pilot was out of his seat for longer than necessary (though many resorted to taking a po with them)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 15, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Another thought occurs. In one way (and on rare occasions) might the RAF way have been better? In the Lanc a 'semi trained' pilot could climb into the cockpit if the pilot was hit, and take the plane home, but in a direct hit on a B-17 cockpit that incapacitates both pilots, what would happen?


Not really - in the USAAF usually the Navigator or flight engineer could fly as well and at least one FE did manage to land a crippled B-17 and got the MOH for it. The chances of pilot incapacity were very slim - the fact that a single pilot could make twice the mistakes when flying a 4 engine aircraft is the point, and I remain that there would have been a lot less lancaster losses if they were flown with a dedicated co-pilot, and that's not taking anything away from the plane or the crews that flew her.


Waynos said:


> I dont think the durability of a radial engine is particularly relevant for a four engined plane that can fly quite happily on two, especially two of the most reliable and durable inlines in history.


As reliable as the Merlin is/was, it still carries a coolant system and is a lot more vulnerable than a radial hands down. The point is a radial can be shot to pieces and still work. You ain't flying with pistons missing from a Merlin...


Waynos said:


> I believe the biggest failing in the Lancaster was the aforementioned lack of a belly turret, which was the result of official policy decisions as Avro had designed it with one. I don't think it can be faulted in any other area, except for the only toilet being right at the back, meaning the pilot was out of his seat for longer than necessary (though many resorted to taking a po with them)


The Lancaster for the most part had little or no faults in its operational career and it was the perfect bomber at the perfect time, but technology quickly eclipsed the aircraft as it quickly disappeared from front line squadrons at war's end and those that survived saw many years in secondary roles. IMO it was the best heavy bomber of the European Theater.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 15, 2010)

We would have to see how many otherwise flyable aircraft were lost due to the loss of the pilot to prove that, but I wouldn't know how to go about it. Common sense says that it must have happened, but was it a significant number?

I do agree on the radial v inline engines point, but I just feel that to lose the power or coolant for three of your four engines would be extremely unfortunate, and you would probably have other problems with that many hits in close proximity. Interestingly, the radial powered Lancaster II had lower performance and was generally disliked in comparison to the Merlin Lanc. Production of this model ended after only 300 had been built

I agree with your last paragraph. If anything the Lancaster was the ultimate expression of *pre-war* bomber technology. The B-29 was the future and it had its equivalents on the drawing boards of Avro, Handley Page and Shorts, but once the war began there was no way British industry was going to be allowed to pursue such lengthy, expensive and risky development paths. Did you know there was a move during 1943-44 to have an anglicized B-29 built in the UK for the RAF, but the length of time it would take to put bombers into service meant it was dropped, only for us to have to buy 2nd had ex USAF 'Washington's ' in 1950.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 15, 2010)

Waynos said:


> We would have to see how many otherwise flyable aircraft were lost due to the loss of the pilot to prove that, but I wouldn't know how to go about it. Common sense says that it must have happened, but was it a significant number?


Somewhere on here I seen that lancasters had high weather related losses or losses during landing, but I don't think specifics were given. It would be at that time where this should be the most prevalent.


Waynos said:


> I do agree on the radial v inline engines point, but I just feel that to lose the power or coolant for three of your four engines would be extremely unfortunate, and you would probably have other problems with that many hits in close proximity. Interestingly, the radial powered Lancaster II had lower performance and was generally disliked in comparison to the Merlin Lanc. Production of this model ended after only 300 had been built


Try operating any in line engine without coolant. Heads and head gaskets don't do well...

I know the Lanc II didn't do well but wasn't it built just as a stopgap until there were enough merlins available?



Waynos said:


> I agree with your last paragraph. If anything the Lancaster was the ultimate expression of *pre-war* bomber technology. The B-29 was the future and it had its equivalents on the drawing boards of Avro, Handley Page and Shorts, but once the war began there was no way British industry was going to be allowed to pursue such lengthy, expensive and risky development paths. *Did you know there was a move during 1943-44 to have an anglicized B-29 built in the UK for the RAF, but the length of time it would take to put bombers into service meant it was dropped, only for us to have to buy 2nd had ex USAF 'Washington's ' in 1950*.



Didn't know that!


----------



## Waynos (Feb 15, 2010)

This might seem a rather basic question, but Im no engineer, was there just the one single coolant tank for all four engines, or did each have its own supply?

Almost right on the Lancaster II, it was built in anticipation of a shortage of Merlins that never actually materialised, but so great was the loss of performance that it was dropped ASAP. In contrast to this the Halifax III (Hercules radial) was vastly superior to the Merlin Halifax, but still inferior to the Lancaster I.

In the spring of 1943 Ralph Sorley (after evaluation of several new designs) nominated the B-29 as ' the only prospective short term replacement for the Lancaster'. Discussions to this end were led by Lord Portal and a delegation travelled to the US to discuss it. Alas my source lacks any fine detail and concludes only with the statement that 'the problems in adapting the type for night bombing from England proved insurmountable in the time available and so the type was never used'

Any further specifics on this from anyone who has them would be welcome


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 15, 2010)

Waynos said:


> This might seem a rather basic question, but Im no engineer, was there just the one single coolant tank for all four engines, or did each have its own supply?


Each engine had its own supply.


Waynos said:


> Almost right on the Lancaster II, it was built in anticipation of a shortage of Merlins that never actually materialised, but so great was the loss of performance that it was dropped ASAP. In contrast to this the Halifax III (Hercules radial) was vastly superior to the Merlin Halifax, but still inferior to the Lancaster I.
> 
> In the spring of 1943 Ralph Sorley (after evaluation of several new designs) nominated the B-29 as ' the only prospective short term replacement for the Lancaster'. Discussions to this end were led by Lord Portal and a delegation travelled to the US to discuss it. Alas my source lacks any fine detail and concludes only with the statement that 'the problems in adapting the type for night bombing from England proved insurmountable in the time available and so the type was never used'
> 
> Any further specifics on this from anyone who has them would be welcome



Great info.


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 15, 2010)

Waynos said:


> This might seem a rather basic question, but Im no engineer, was there just the one single coolant tank for all four engines, or did each have its own supply?


Wayne
look at it this way
think how utterly stuffed all four engines would be if a sole coolant reservoir was perforated

That's a big glider...


----------



## renrich (Feb 15, 2010)

The Lancaster had a service ceiling of 24500, the B24 had a service ceiling of 28000 feet, the B17 had a service ceiling of 35000 feet. Which was most survivable against the heavy bomber's arch enemy, Flak?


----------



## Waynos (Feb 15, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Wayne
> look at it this way
> think how utterly stuffed all four engines would be if a sole coolant reservoir was perforated
> 
> That's a big glider...



Thats why I asked, after I said to FBJ that IMO the reliability issue of the Merlin losing coolant wasn't *that * much of a problem due to their being four of them, I thought to myself 'ah, but what if......?'



renrich said:


> The Lancaster had a service ceiling of 24500, the B24 had a service ceiling of 28000 feet, the B17 had a service ceiling of 35000 feet. Which was most survivable against the heavy bomber's arch enemy, Flak?



I dont think that works as a defence in this case because the aircraft did not operate at its altitude limit, but at the altitude from which the target could be bombed, which would have been the same for all three types on the Lanc's mission. The dam busters bombed from 60ft.


----------



## renrich (Feb 16, 2010)

I don't believe you are correct Waynos. The bombers bombed from the highest altitude they could reach where accurate bombing was possible. They did this to make the flak less effective. I believe the B17s often bombed from 25000 feet up whereas the B24 had to bomb from lower altitudes. If the Lancaster had been used for daylight bombing it's lower service ceiling might have been a handicap. That lower service ceiling would have made it more vulnerable to altitude challenged fighters like the FW190 also.


----------



## Milosh (Feb 16, 2010)

renrich said:


> The Lancaster had a service ceiling of 24500, the B24 had a service ceiling of 28000 feet, the B17 had a service ceiling of 35000 feet. Which was most survivable against the heavy bomber's arch enemy, Flak?



Are those altitudes for a bomber with its typical bomb load?


----------



## renrich (Feb 16, 2010)

Milosh, I have two sources, "The Great Book of World War II Airplanes" and "Aircraft Of World War II" by Kenneth Munson. The Lancaster figures in one book show AC at mean weight, and the service ceilings are both 24500. One book shows service ceiling of B17 is 36000 feet. I expect that the service ceiling numbers are with typical load. They would vary a little depending on fuel load, because fuel is used outward bound and bomb load but I believe the numbers are accurate.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 16, 2010)

The USSBS indicated that the higher you go, the lower your CEP, which had the perverse effect that 2 or 3 missions had to be flown to knock out the target.

The B17 flying at 30,000 feet might have been good for the survivability of the bomber and crew; but it was at the expense of what a bomber is supposed to do. Drop lots of bombs accurately.


----------



## renrich (Feb 16, 2010)

I don't think there is any doubt that the higher the altitude the bombs are dropped from the more inaccurate the bombing will be in WW2. However, I don't think there is any doubt that the higher the bombers fly the harder for the Flak to bring them down and also the more difficult it is for altitude challenged fighters to intercept. The point is that the Lancaster was probably not as suited, for several reasons, as the B17 and B24 for daylight bombing.


----------



## Milosh (Feb 16, 2010)

renrich, I was hoping you had a more authoritative source than those 2 books.


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 16, 2010)

Bombing accuracy was a function of bombing altitude and bombsight design. The SABS sight on the Lancaster was extremely accurate. Here's an exhibition of truly pin point accuracy from 14000 ft :

Internet Archive: Free Download: RAF Sinks Tirpitz, 1944/11/22

The Lancasters that sank Tirpitz had to fly a ~2400 mile round trip with a 12000lb bomb load to the target. 

The modded Lancaster 1 could carry the 22000lb Grand Slam to radius of 775 miles at a 15000ft cruise altitude with a 19000ft drop altitude. Total fuel carried was 1675 gallons and consumption was 720 gallons on the 775 mile outboard run and 620 gallons on the return 775 mile run. Take-off weight was 72000lb. Weight over the target was equivalent to the fully loaded gross weight of a standard lancaster. From a 1946 edition of _Flight_.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 16, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Bombing accuracy was a function of bombing altitude and bombsight design. The SABS sight on the Lancaster was extremely accurate. Here's an exhibition of truly pin point accuracy from 14000 ft :
> 
> Internet Archive: Free Download: RAF Sinks Tirpitz, 1944/11/22
> 
> ...



The Norden bombsight was also accurate for its day. At 19,000 feet, it accomplished the same as the SABS.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 17, 2010)

As far as the service ceilings go. they are going to be very affected by the weight of the aircraft. see the flight manual posted here on this site:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/b-17f-g-manual-one-piece-22716.html

See page 80 for climb rates a various altitudes and weights. also see page 98.

I imagine that the B-24 and Lancaster had similar charts and trade offs so when comparing it would be good to specify under what conditions the comparison is being made. 

Service ceiling was usually defined as the altitude at which the plane could still climb at 100ft per minute (or close metric equivalent?). A B-17 that took of at 65,000lbs and burned off 8000lbs of fuel was going to have a lot of difficulty getting anywhere near 35,000ft.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 17, 2010)

Ren, none of the allies heavies were particularly suited to daylight raids. US losses before the advent of long range escorts were every bit as horrendous as the RAF had told them they would be, that was why the RAF switched to night bombing and they regularly pleaded with the USAAF to make the same switch (by 'they' I mean Harris).

The US heavies were, perhaps better *adapted* to the day assalult by carrying less bombs (typically about half the average Lancaster load) and more machine guns. Maybe this is why they could fly higher? There were plans to make high altitude Lancs which involved only the removal of the front fuselage and replacement with a pressurised cabin (akin to the Wellington VI prototype) but this was never pursued to the hardware stage so, if it could fly so high that a pressure cabin might be needed, albeit with a lesser bomb load, there was no physical reason the Lanc could not match the US types for altitude, if required to, as far as I can see?

In a chapter referring to Tiger Force that I was reading recently there was a passage where a senior RAF officer was bemoaning the fact that the US seemed not to be able to appreciate just what the Lanc could do. In comparison with the B-17 and 24 he writes that neither of them could take off with an 18,000lb load from a 6,000ft runway, he also writes how the Lanc could carry a higher load of incendiaries than even the B-29. He explained how, if anyone is interested I'll scan that particular passage and post it up. Its nothuing earth shattering, but I found it quite interesting.


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 17, 2010)

> In a chapter referring to Tiger Force that I was reading recently there was a passage where a senior RAF officer was bemoaning the fact that the US seemed not to be able to appreciate just what the Lanc could do. In comparison with the B-17 and 24 he writes that neither of them could take off with an 18,000lb load from a 6,000ft runway, he also writes how the Lanc could carry a higher load of incendiaries than even the B-29. He explained how, if anyone is interested I'll scan that particular passage and post it up. Its nothing earth shattering, but I found it quite interesting.



I would certainly be interested.


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 17, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> The Lancasters that sank Tirpitz had to fly a ~2400 mile round trip with a 12000lb bomb load to the target.



BTW, on a earlier mission, 3 Lancasters flew back to base with their 12000lb tallboy after the Tirpitz was obscured. 2400 miles carrying the bomb the whole way.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 17, 2010)

Here is the snippet, the officer in question was Air Marshall Sir Hugh Lloyd, and these are his own words and the extract is from page 499 of 'Lancaster' by Leo McKinstry, which has first hand accounts like this all the way through it from every aspect of the Lancasters history.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2010)

That's good info Waynos, but as explained many times before, that's all in the bomb racks which could be removed, modified, and reconfigured and has little to do with the aircraft.

I question the runway length argument - that depends on fuel and bombload and there's a lot of variables built in there.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2010)

RCAFson - you share a common IP with a FORMER member - dunmunro1. * Please explain...*


----------



## ppopsie (Feb 17, 2010)

World War II Pilots

As a citizen of an ex-enemy nation I admire all three and as an airplane nuts I love all of them. I read and enjoyed the story listed above and the one titled "Wild Blue" a story of McGovern by E. Ambrose which was fully translated into our langage. Who said the B-24 was inferior to the B-17? What happened if we got one like the one of these in the war (plus petrol).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> RCAFson - you share a common IP with a FORMER member - dunmunro1. * Please explain...*



And the fact that he registered shortly after the other guy was banned...

Someone is playing you for dumb.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And the fact that he registered shortly after the other guy was banned...
> 
> Someone is playing you for dumb.



Maybe naive, but never dumb!


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 17, 2010)

Are we dealing with a split personality you say?


----------



## Demetrious (Feb 17, 2010)

renrich said:


> The Lancaster had a service ceiling of 24500, the B24 had a service ceiling of 28000 feet, the B17 had a service ceiling of 35000 feet. Which was most survivable against the heavy bomber's arch enemy, Flak?



I am quoting this post because it deserves to be re-iterated. 

As for pin-point accuracy at angels 14 or even 19, that's no surprise. The Norden and it's British equivalent were marvelous technological devices more then capable of that accuracy. The reason daylight precision bombing was less then precise was because attacking at 15-20K in daylight with no fighter escort was tantamount to suicide. Consider the damage inflicted- and the horrendous losses received- by the B-24 low-level raid on Polesti.

Accuracy went to hell when you attacked from 30,000 feet- but by the same token, 30,000 feet was HIGH for the day. Enemy interception was greatly impeded and flak accuracy was reduced, and only the 88mm guns could reach you, as opposed to 40mm and up at mid-altitudes. The ability of the US to put armadas of hundreds of aircraft into the air also rendered the whole issue of accuracy somewhat moot, since everything within four square miles was obliterated. 

Daylight vs. Night bombing- in the earlier days of the war, daylight bombing was obviously more effective. However, the British continued to develop remote-guidance technology (first used against them by the Germans in the 'Battle of the Beams') to the point where eventually British night bombing became more accurate then American daylight bombing. 

Of course, long-range escorts were coming into their own at that point. In the early days, daylight bombing offered an offensive power available nowhere else.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 17, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That's good info Waynos, but as explained many times before, that's all in the bomb racks which could be removed, modified, and reconfigured and has little to do with the aircraft.
> 
> I question the runway length argument - that depends on fuel and bombload and there's a lot of variables built in there.




I think he was speaking more in terms of internal volume, rather than the racks (of which the B-29 is said in the quote to have more than the Lanc, but the bombs accomodated int he Lanc were bigger) But that is just my interpretation of what was said.

Regarding the runway length, what sort of variables come into play with what is, I feel, a clear cut statement, that neither the B-17 or 24 could take off from a 6,000ft runway with a load of 18,000lb of bombs?

Are you saying that they could if they were not carrying any fuel?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2010)

Waynos said:


> I think he was speaking more in terms of internal volume, rather than the racks (of which the B-29 is said in the quote to have more than the Lanc, but the bombs accomodated int he Lanc were bigger) But that is just my interpretation of what was said.


The key word was "hooks." If you listen to what he says you're talking about 800 pounds of additional incendaries.


Waynos said:


> Regarding the runway length, what sort of variables come into play with what is, I feel, a clear cut statement, that neither the B-17 or 24 could take off from a 6,000ft runway with a load of 18,000lb of bombs?
> 
> Are you saying that they could if they were not carrying any fuel?



You would have to do the math with data from performance charts and also consider what kind of head wind (if any) was available. It's obvious that the B-17 or B-24 isn't carrying that kind of bomb load, but I don't see where runway length would be a player in the way the war actually turned out.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 17, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The key word was "hooks." If you listen to what he says you're talking about 800 pounds of additional incendaries.



Yes, I never pretended anything else. As the B-29 has more hooks it accomodates 1520x6lb bombs, whereas the more voluminous bomb bay of the Lancaster accomodates 504x20lb bombs. The point was only ever that the Lanc carried a heavier poundage overall* of incendiaries*. I may be missing the point - but I dont think I am - but I took that as an illustration of the usefulness of the Lancs large one piece bomb bay. I don't think anyone, least of all an Air Marshall, would try to say the Lanc could lift a heavier load than a B-29.
I think the key to this is what exactly was the difference between the 6lb incendiary and the 20lb incendiary and what was the max load of the B-29 with 20ld inceniaries, if it carried them ? It is not only a question of weight but also of volume if ther weapons are to be carried internally.



> You would have to do the math with data from performance charts and also consider what kind of head wind (if any) was available. It's obvious that the B-17 or B-24 isn't carrying that kind of bomb load, but I don't see where runway length would be a player in the way the war actually turned out.



Sorry, I seem to be missing something here. If it simply cannot lift off in that distance, with that load, under ANY circumsances (which is spelled out in the quote - cf "even under the most favourable of conditions") what calculations remain to be done?

The relevance of the point was that the USAAF was engaged in extending existing runways from 6000ft to 85000ft to accomodate the B-29. He was just saying that Lancasters could fly from those fields as they were and deliver heavy loads to boot.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Yes, I never pretended anything else. As the B-29 has more hooks it accomodates 1520x6lb bombs, whereas the more voluminous bomb bay of the Lancaster accomodates 504x20lb bombs. The point was only ever that the Lanc carried a heavier poundage overall* of incendiaries*. I may be missing the point - but I dont think I am - but I took that as an illustration of the usefulness of the Lancs large one piece bomb bay. I don't think anyone, least of all an Air Marshall, would try to say the Lanc could lift a heavier load than a B-29.
> I think the key to this is what exactly was the difference between the 6lb incendiary and the 20lb incendiary and what was the max load of the B-29 with 20ld inceniaries, if it carried them ? It is not only a question of weight but also of volume if ther weapons are to be carried internally.


You also need to look at the "hook" and how it could be installed in the aircraft - that's the point here. Additionally bomb racks can be interchanged between aircraft, it's a matter of modifying structure to accept them. To really determine this one would have to install the Lancaster’s bomb racks that carry incendiaries into a B-29




Waynos said:


> Sorry, I seem to be missing something here. If it simply cannot lift off in that distance, with that load, under ANY circumsances (which is spelled out in the quote - cf "even under the most favourable of conditions") what calculations remain to be done?


I'm assuming we're talking about calculating take off distances or distances and weight combined? To make that statement one would have to look at how the aircraft could perform with a max bomb load with a lighter fuel load and determine runway takeoff length.



Waynos said:


> The relevance of the point was that the USAAF was engaged in extending existing runways from 6000ft to 85000ft to accomodate the B-29. He was just saying that Lancasters could fly from those fields as they were and deliver heavy loads to boot.


His opinion, 2000' feet more on operational runways was not that big of a deal and considering what you're getting in the end result justified the cause. This brings in the debate about operating Lancasters in the Pacific vs. B-29. I don't there's much of a comparison. You’re looking at bringing in a very good bomber that was soon to be obsolete operating at the far end of its performance spectrum. I see the B-29 as the perfect weapon to accomplish the job it was assigned to do just as the Lancaster was the perfect night bomber over Germany.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 17, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'm assuming we're talking about calculating take off distances or distances and weight combined? To make that statement one would have to look at how the aircraft could perform with a max bomb load with a lighter fuel load and determine runway takeoff length.
> 
> His opinion, 2000' feet more on operational runways was not that big of a deal and considering what you're getting in the end result justified the cause. This brings in the debate about operating Lancasters in the Pacific vs. B-29. I don't there's much of a comparison. You’re looking at bringing in a very good bomber that was soon to be obsolete operating at the far end of its performance spectrum. I see the B-29 as the perfect weapon to accomplish the job it was assigned to do just as the Lancaster was the perfect night bomber over Germany.



Agree the point about the hook, I suppose we'll have to leave that to one side, just to reiterate, a major advantage of the Lanc over other bombers of the time was not only its ability to lift heavy loads, but also to accomodate them. The advantage this provides in the ability to carry a variety of weapons not available to other aircraft should not be undervalued. The most immediate example of this was that the Short Stirling, despite a 14,000lb load, could not carry the 4,000lb cookie. Thats the area covered by this point, not lifting capacity.

It was actually quite a bit of a deal to have all that manpower employed in extending runways. The runway argument was not that the Lanc should be used instead of the B-29. It was just that here was a heavy bomber that could start operations immediately without major building works to extend the runways, that could launch a bomber offensive against Japan even as the B-29 fields were being prepared. It was borne of his frustration that the USAAF felt it did not need the co-operation of the RAF in bombing Japan and he was convinced that the abilities of the Lanc were being seriously undervalued in the US. Both of which points were basically true. The US was entirely capable of bombing Japan on its own, and the Lanc would have offered a 'better than we have' capability before the B-29 was fully ready. Maybe the USAAF just didn't want somebody elses heavies hitting Japan before their own, as also happened with the A bomb tests?


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 17, 2010)

Waynos, your argument about the length of the runways is irrelevent.

The US had so many engineering resources at its disposal, that whatever length runway the B29's needed, it would be be built, and built quickly.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Agree the point about the hook, I suppose we'll have to leave that to one side, just to reiterate, a major advantage of the Lanc over other bombers of the time was not only its ability to lift heavy loads, but also to accomodate them. The advantage this provides in the ability to carry a variety of weapons not available to other aircraft should not be undervalued. The most immediate example of this was that the Short Stirling, despite a 14,000lb load, could not carry the 4,000lb cookie. Thats the area covered by this point, not lifting capacity.


Agree...



Waynos said:


> It was actually quite a bit of a deal to have all that manpower employed in extending runways. The runway argument was not that the Lanc should be used instead of the B-29. *It was just that here was a heavy bomber that could start operations immediately without major building works to extend the runways, that could launch a bomber offensive against Japan even as the B-29 fields were being prepared*. It was borne of his frustration that the USAAF felt it did not need the co-operation of the RAF in bombing Japan and he was convinced that the abilities of the Lanc were being seriously undervalued in the US. Both of which points were basically true. The US was entirely capable of bombing Japan on its own, and the Lanc would have offered a 'better than we have' capability before the B-29 was fully ready. Maybe the USAAF just didn't want somebody elses heavies hitting Japan before their own, as also happened with the A bomb tests?


Right there I have to disagree - The B-29 was actually planned and on the drawing board before the Lancaster. By late 1943 it was pretty evident that the B-29 was going to be the bomber to strike Japan. To bring in the Lancaster would have been a huge shift in priorities and resources that was already supporting a dedicated weapons system. Although US factories could have been set up to build the Lancaster under license, there is no doubt there would have been resources taken away from the already needed production lines supporting the war in Europe, and there is no way the existing production effort in Canada could have supported another 1000 bombers a year. Additionally, as previously discussed, the Lancaster would have been stretching its operational capabilities, would have needed tankers and twice the men and personnel to do the same job. There is no doubt the B-29 had its teething pains but in the end not only was it the right tool to do the job but it was able to be used years after the war. The Lancaster was approaching obsolescence and I think many in the USAAF saw that (as well as the RAF). Again, I guess those who felt the Lancaster could have done the same job in the Pacific as the Lancaster probably ate their words when the first Washingtons landed in the UK . Additionally, if the Lancaster would have offered anything close to the b-29 in capability and performance, I’m sure the Soviets would have copied it in lieu of the B-29.

And in the middle of all this, don't forget the B-32.

Now as far as the A bomb tests - your point?


----------



## Waynos (Feb 17, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> Waynos, your argument about the length of the runways is irrelevent.
> 
> The US had so many engineering resources at its disposal, that whatever length runway the B29's needed, it would be be built, and built quickly.



Its not my argument.

This quote seems to have been turned, over the last few posts, into something it was not. 

It was not an argument in favour of the US license producing the Lancaster.

It was not an argument in favour of abandoning or delaying the B-29

It was not an argument that the Lancaster was better than, or even quivalent to, the B-29,

It was an argument, by an RAF Air Marshall, that a valuable allied asset, already existing in large numbers, the Lancaster, could perform a useful role against Japanese forces and was better suited than either the B-17 or the B-24 to local conditions but that the RAF was being sidelined.

As you know, FBJ, the Lanc was proposed for the A bomb tests, but there was no way the USAAF was going to let its prized new weapon be dropped by a foreign aeroplane, even on trial. I was, tongue in cheek, wondering if there was an element of this in the USAAF's reluctance to allow RAF bombers in theatre.


----------



## renrich (Feb 17, 2010)

Few Lancasters had the two speed two stage supercharged Merlins which accounted for it's relatively low service ceiling.

Some interesting points about the Lancaster are: Rolls Royce signed a contract in September, 1940, with Packard in the US, to build Merlin engines under license. That increased the supply of Merlins to the point that the Lancaster was possible. A radial engined Lancaster was produced in case the supply of Packard Merlins were curtailed by US needs but that subtype was never very effective.
The ammo supply for the tail turret was huge, some 10000 rounds in each bin located approximately amidships. The tail guns were fed from the bins by chutes that ran aft, almost half the length of the AC.
All the crew including the tail gunner were supposed to evacuate in case of emergency by way of the nose hatch. Just over ten per cent of Lancaster crews survived a shoot down.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2010)

Waynos said:


> As you know, FBJ, the Lanc was proposed for the A bomb tests, but there was no way the USAAF was going to let its prized new weapon be dropped by a foreign aeroplane, even on trial. I was, tongue in cheek, wondering if there was an element of this in the USAAF's reluctance to allow RAF bombers in theatre.


 And that was the statement from General Leslie Groves - "beyond comprehension to use a British plane to deliver an American A-bomb".

Also keep in mind that Groves was not a pilot - he was an engineering officer. I'd bet dollars to donuts that when given the choices and analyzing the risks, the brass of the day who were pilots would have opted for the B-29 even though the Lancaster was "seemingly" readily available.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 17, 2010)

given an even choice, yes I agree. The RAF did not have that choice

ren - the rear gunner bailed out by opening the doors at the back of the turret, retrieving the parachute hanging on the inside of the fuselage, closing the doors again and rotating the turret to one side where the doors were opened again and he tumbled out backwards. Quite a procedure!

There were examples of crewmen, in their panic, jumping out without their chute. There is also a famous incident where a rear gunner who didn't have a choice (other than jump or burn), jumped without his chute from 18,000ft and survived!

Although the Lanc had a far higher survival rate than the Halifax, of those that were shot down 35% of Halifax crews survived the experience compared to only 19% ( not ten, but still crap) of Lancaster crews. Does anyone have figures for the USAAF of 'shootdown survivals'?


----------



## renrich (Feb 17, 2010)

It is my understanding that the Lanc could not be used to drop the A bomb because it could not get high enough or go fast enough to escape the blast.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2010)

renrich said:


> It is my understanding that the Lanc could not be used to drop the A bomb because it could not get high enough or go fast enough to escape the blast.



I think that might be consideration although the bomb was dropped from over 30,000 feet at Hiroshima and I believe the same for Nagisaki which put the Lancaster out of the running as an atomic bomber, at least on these missions.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 17, 2010)

Altitude may have been an issue, but an unladen Lanc was not that much slower than the B-29. 287mph is the oft quoted top speed of the standard Lanc, but a 'special' would have been faster. The more streamlined Lancastrian topped out at 310mph. I believe the B-29 top speed was 345mph? In this case though, more is better, by whatever margin 

Lest this develop into another debate I'm not particularly looking for, I'm not making a case for the Lanc to drop the A bomb. Only mentioning the historical fact that it was identified as the only allied bomber other than the B-29 capable of dropping it for trials purposes.

If you were thinking of using the Lancaster to drop one operationally you would need the long range saddle tank designed for the Tiger Force PLUS the high altitude pressure cabin that was tested on the Wellington VI PLUS no guns. A development too far I feel.


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 17, 2010)

The A-bomb B29s were special builds. A stripped Lancaster with modded engines and reduced armament should have been able to deliver a 10000lb payload at close to 30k ft, and the 345mph Lancaster Mk VI with Merlin 85/87 engines and paddle blade props, seems a likely candidate.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 17, 2010)

Some compelling arguments Waynos but if I was a pilot looking for surviving which would I opt for .The B29


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> The A-bomb B29s were special builds. A stripped Lancaster with modded engines and reduced armament should have been able to deliver a 10000lb payload at close to 30k ft, and the 345mph Lancaster Mk VI with Merlin 85/87 engines and paddle blade props, seems a likely candidate.



Could of would of should of - all fairy taie specualtion with no historical merit. *Can you say "B-50???"*

"Special Build" No the term is *"modified"* and if done away from the factory its called *"field modified."*


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Altitude may have been an issue, but an unladen Lanc was not that much slower than the B-29. 287mph is the oft quoted top speed of the standard Lanc, but a 'special' would have been faster. The more streamlined Lancastrian topped out at 310mph. I believe the B-29 top speed was 345mph? In this case though, more is better, by whatever margin


B-29, depending on who you quote or how you do some of the calculations out of the flight manual had a top speed of 353 - 360 MPH


Waynos said:


> Lest this develop into another debate I'm not particularly looking for, I'm not making a case for the Lanc to drop the A bomb. Only mentioning the historical fact that it was identified as the only allied bomber other than the B-29 capable of dropping it for trials purposes.
> 
> If you were thinking of using the Lancaster to drop one operationally you would need the long range saddle tank designed for the Tiger Force PLUS the high altitude pressure cabin that was tested on the Wellington VI PLUS no guns. A development too far I feel.



The Lanc was considered but that was the mention of one man, an engineer who would not have been in the decision process if a choice was to made by many of which aircraft should have been used, but I totally understand your point.

All this talk of modified Lancasters when the B-50 would have been available much quicker and in substancial numbers. 200 were ordered during the sumer of 1945 and had the war continued I'm sure you "would have" seen another thousand within the following year. You're now looking at an aircraft that could carry 28,000 pounds of bombs at a max speed of close to 400 mph over 35,000 feet with a combat radius of over 2,000 miles.


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 17, 2010)

Enola Gay

"_The bomber was one of 15 B-29s with the "Silverplate" modifications necessary to deliver atomic weapons. Enola Gay was built by the Glenn L. Martin Company at its Bellevue, Nebraska, plant at what is now known as Offutt Air Force Base and was personally selected by Colonel Paul W. Tibbets, Jr., commander of the 509th Composite Group, on 9 May 1945 while still on the assembly line. This would be the B-29 that he would use to fly the atomic bomb mission._"
Enola Gay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_"The final wartime Silverplates incorporated all technical improvements to B-29 aircraft, as well as the final series of Silverplate modifications that included fuel-injected Wright R-3350-41 engines, Curtiss Electric reversible-pitch propellers, and pneumatic actuators for rapid opening and closing of bomb bay doors.[1]:14 Weight reduction was also accomplished by removal of all gun turrets and armor plating. These B-29s represented a significant increase in performance over the standard variants."_
Silverplate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Enola Gay
> 
> "_The bomber was one of 15 B-29s with the "Silverplate"* modifications *necessary to deliver atomic weapons. Enola Gay was built by the Glenn L. Martin Company at its Bellevue, Nebraska, plant at what is now known as Offutt Air Force Base and was personally selected by Colonel Paul W. Tibbets, Jr., commander of the 509th Composite Group, on 9 May 1945 *while still on the assembly line*. This would be the B-29 that he would use to fly the atomic bomb mission._"
> Enola Gay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...




*And your point??? Oh, you could cut and paste from Wikipedia!*  


*Oh - you figured out the definition of MODIFICATION?!?!*

*BTW - haven't you "cut and pasted" that before????*


----------



## Waynos (Feb 17, 2010)

Exactly FBJ, that is what I meant by 'a development too far'. What would be the point? The Lincoln would have been more suitable and easier to modify............and still out of date. With the wartime limitations on the aircraft industry removed there was no need to keep wringing every last drop out of the original Manchester airframe, and so development of the V bombers began.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Exactly FBJ, that is what I meant by 'a development too far'. What would be the point? The Lincoln would have been more suitable and easier to modify............and still out of date



Agree Waynos 100% - and right now it seems unlike a few brainless twits trolling around here, you can debate this without having to burn up the cut and paste program on your computer.

I see the Lincoln as the next step up from the Lanc - behind the B-29 but the next step forward.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 17, 2010)

RCAFson, none of the modifications done for the Silverplate B29's would be considered a line change. Even the engines were in production and planned for the next "block change".


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> RCAFson, none of the modifications done for the Silverplate B29's would be considered a line change. Even the engines were in production and planned for the next "block change".



I don't know Sys - that might too complicated for our friend to understand. You might provide a source for reference so he could cut and paste it.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 17, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree Waynos 100% - and right now it seems unlike a few brainless twits trolling around here, you can debate this without having to burn up the cut and paste program on your computer.
> 
> I see the Lincoln as the next step up from the Lanc - behind the B-29 but the next step forward.



Cut and paste can be ok, if it is to illustrate, or in support of a point you are making. its the pastes without any additional explanation that baffle me, what is the poster trying to say???


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Cut and paste can be ok, if it is to illustrate, or in support of a point you are making. its the pastes without any additional explanation that baffle me, what is the poster trying to say???



He's an idiot!


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 17, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I don't know Sys - that might too complicated for our friend to understand. You might provide a source for reference so he could cut and paste it.



Off topic, but an explanation of how aircraft production in those years was divided in to models, blocks and field changes might be worthy of a "Q&A thread".

Maybe even compare how different countries with different production philosophies handled changes in production.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> Off topic, but an explanation of how aircraft production in those years was divided in to models, blocks and field changes might be worthy of a "Q&A thread".
> 
> Maybe even compare how different countries with different production philosophies handled changes in production.



Good idea!


----------



## Leonard Porter (Feb 17, 2016)

I flew the B-24 in Combat in the Pacific. My aircraft was "Ruff Knights". number 550. My ground crewman did the Nose Art.
The B-24 was faster, could carry more bombs and fly further
than the B-17. Later I flew the B-17 in the States and the B-29. I much preferred the B-24 over The B-17.
The B-17 was sloppy and reminded me of the C-47. Some have said the B-24 was difficult to fly. I didn't
think so and I had to pull out of some very dangerous situations at times.. We flew 34 missions out of Saipan and the last 6
out of Guam.. My ground crew chief, later told me he and Ruff Knights (550) were shipped to Okinawa. When the war
was over Ruff Knights along with the rest of the fleet was bull dozed into a huge canyon or ditch and covered over. It would cost
too much to fly them back. Leonard Porter, Lt. Colonel USAF, Retired.

Reactions: Like Like:
9 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2016)

Welcome Colonel porter! What unit were you in?


----------



## Mike Williams (Feb 17, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Welcome Colonel porter! What unit were you in?



Never mind see - B-24 ID Sought


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 17, 2016)

Leonard Porter said:


> I flew the B-24 in Combat in the Pacific. My aircraft was "Ruff Knights". number 550. My ground crewman did the Nose Art.
> The B-24 was faster, could carry more bombs and fly further
> than the B-17. Later I flew the B-17 in the States and the B-29. I much preferred the B-24 over The B-17.
> The B-17 was sloppy and reminded me of the C-47. Some have said the B-24 was difficult to fly. I didn't
> ...



I bet you have some stories you can tell.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2016)

Mike Williams said:


> Never mind see - B-24 ID Sought


I see that Mike - I began this thread as my kids great grandfather flew with the 30th BG which consisted of 4 squadrons. A photo of "Ruff Knights" were in a collection of family photos.

Colonel Porter - do you remember this aircraft?


----------



## Glider (Feb 21, 2016)

I see the Lincoln as the next step up from the Lanc - behind the B-29 but the next step forward

Totally agree as did the RAF who after all bought the B29 when they had plenty of Lincolns


----------

