The German results generally were no better. They exerted a lot of effort on one target (London) initially, which they could find. They then scattered bombs all over it and the neighbouring Home Counties. The Luftwaffe had many more operational bombers and crews than the RAF in 1939/40, excluding Battles, and I think an argument can be made that the early war Luftwaffe bomber crews were generally better trained than their RAF counterparts. I have seen it said that in September 1939 the RAF could only field 140 medium or heavy bombers. The Luftwaffe's most successful raids were carried out using electronic aids (Knickebein, X-Gerat) and pathfinders, both of which the RAF would adopt variations of with much success later. The problem for the RAF was that the bomber force to a very large extent was designed and trained to operate by day. Having been forced to operate by night put it at a crippling disadvantage from which it took years to recover.
In the scheme of things, yep, you're right Steve, but comparing aircraft for aircraft, if the RAF operated Ju 88s, G4Ms or any other type available in the environment they did, the results would be no different, likewise the Luftwaffe and Stirlings, Whitleys and Wellingtons. My point is, that the aircraft that the British operated were no worse off than their contemporaries, Bomber Command structure and method aside, so stating they were terrible has to be put into context against the standards of the day. Yes, Bomber Command was at a distinct disadvantage, but only the Luftwaffe had a better bombing force with as much exoperience and as competent equipment as the RAF in 1941. At that time, the rest of the world's air forces, including the United States had a distinctly pre-war bombing force that could not match either the Luftwaffe or Bomber Command in equipment or accuracy. The German bomber squadrons were the most accurate and probably as a result of this, the best in the world thanks to their electronic bombing aids. It took another two years before the RAF bombers were equipped with something similar.
As I see it the trouble with the Halifax is that it took them almost two years to straighten it out.
It took longer than two years to sort out the Halifax I's many issues and even then the number of variants and sub variants produced along the way to incorporate modifications took time and effort as issues that kept arising kept HP and the Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment hard at work and often resulted in the destruction of aircraft and the death of personnel. The Mk.III did not enter squadron service until late 1943 with 466 Sqn (RAAF) and then 35 Sqn (the first to be equipped with the Halifax I in November 1940) with the first deliveries from August that year. There's no doubt the Halifax III was an excellent aircraft, but it took its time in becoming so.
The Halifax III was intended on being an interim only until the arrival of the Halifax IV, which was cancelled, leaving the III as the principal production variant; It incorporated the square fins and glased nose section sans turret that were first fitted to B.II Series 1As, indeed the prototype R9534 was one of those marks modified with Hercules engines. At the time it was modified as an interim, a cure had yet to be found for the issue with rudder over balance and the bigger fins were about to go into service on the B.II.
Here is a section on dealing with rudder over balance from
The Secret Years, Flight testing at Boscombe Down by Tim Mason;
"During 1942 and later, the search continued for a solution to the problem of rudder over balance though in view of the establishment's experience on the Mk.Is to be the cause of some unexplained service accidents and operational losses. The worst case considered was failure (and feathering) of the two port engines with the two starboard engines at take off power. The first modification, late in 1941, of reducing the rudder trimmer movement resulted in excessive foot loads until, on reducing speed to 160 mph the rudders violently overbalanced to full travel and the resulting uncontrolled manoeuvre could only be overcome by throttling the starboard engines. 'Noseings' (bulbous nose to the rudders) improved matters such that control could be maintained down to a speed 140 mph with 10 deg bank without over balancing, but with very high foot loads. Further changes, in mid 1942, to the balance tab and rudder tab settings reduced the foot loads to acceptable proportions, but re-introduced a mild tendency to rudder over balance.
It was decided to check the effectiveness of the latest modifications on a representative aircraft. W7917 [a B.II Srs I] arrived in December 1942 from 102 Sqn; on the first handling test flight on 4 February 1943, the aircraft crashed fatally. The top half of one rudder had detached in flight - attributed to a violent over balance leading to loss of control. Further investigation on HR679 (the first production aircraft incorporating the full range of aerodynamic improvements known as the Series IA in service but with rudders similar to W7917). Cautious reduction in speed during steady sideslips caused no indication of over balance until at 120 mph the rudders suddenly moved to full travel of their own volition. The pilot regained control at 150 mph after easing the control column forward; 4,000 ft had been lost in the spiral dive. On second attempt control was regained by opening up the engines on the inside of the spiral. Later tests with restricted rudder movement reduced the speed at which less violent over balance occurred. Cords on the trailing edge were tried but removed after it was foundthat they had no effect on over balance and again made the rudders excessively heavy. HR727 had rudders with smaller balance areas which over balanced at smaller angles; the modification was rejected. It was decided that larger fins was the only effective cure; in the mean time restrictors were fitted in existing aircraft with the original fins and service pilots carefully briefed on the over balance of rudders."
I am not trying to pretend that it was better than the Lancaster but it develop into a decent aircraft and that the Halifax did suffer a poor reputation due to its earlier version being compared to the Lancaster.
The Halifax III did have advantages compared to the Lancaster I and it is only natural to compare the two, in fact a number of different books and articles in magazines do so. The Halifax VI out performed the Lancaster III, but by the time it had entered service in April 1945, the Avro Lincoln was in production, which had better performance and again the Halifax was second fiddle to an Avro bomber. What would I choose between the Halifax and Manchester in 1941? The Manchester, not least in hindsight because of the Lancaster, bearing in mind that the Lancaster prototype, which had flown at the very beginning of the year, was a modified Manchester and the type was almost ready for service by the end of 1941.