Altitude of attacks by Lancasters

• Mar 1, 2013

• #21

fastmongrel

1st Sergeant

4,527

3,623

May 28, 2009

Lancashire

Anyone trying to get a 99'1" wing through a 100' door would need to have nerves of steel. 11 inches is not much to play with and get too far left or right and you have damaged a valuable plane and possibly a valuable hangar door. Bet the base commandr wouldnt be pleased at his damaged hangar and the squadron leader would be ballistic.

 

• Mar 1, 2013

• #22

B

Balljoint

Senior Airman

339

28

Jun 3, 2012

Boulder, CO

The doors were actually 34 meters, 112", the span limit was 100' -or so the story goes.

 

• Mar 3, 2013

• #23

R

Rick65

Airman

54

2

Jan 3, 2011

There is a interesting thread on Key on the Supermarine contender for the B12/36 specification that covers the 100ft wingspan. Seems likely that this requirement was in the specification but more to keep the plane size manageable (not like say the B-15 or B-19) rather than being driven by hangar door width.
Supermarine Type B12/36, 317 - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums

 

• Mar 4, 2013

• #24

B

Balljoint

Senior Airman

339

28

Jun 3, 2012

Boulder, CO

I suspect that at the time the specs were issued the designers were satisfied wth 100' wings,

 

• Mar 23, 2013

• #25

50sqnwop/ag

Airman

14

0

Jul 25, 2010

my gt uncles crew attacked Munich from 12,000ft, Dusseldorf from 12,500ft and Milan (Italy, I know) from 12,000ft

 

• Mar 23, 2013

• #26

M

Milosh

Senior Master Sergeant

3,069

953

Aug 10, 2009

I don't know if it still available but there is a booklet produced for the RAF Museum. ISBN 85372-205-6

Lancaster Mk I, R5868, 'Q' Queenie, 'S' Sugar

All the operational missions (137) this Lanc flew are listed with date, target, bomb load and crew.

Besides Milan (3x), Genoa (4x) and Turin (2x) were also attacked. About 14-1500 mi round trip.

 

• Mar 23, 2013

• #27

airminded88

Airman 1st Class

260

70

Mar 11, 2013

Texas, United States

It would make sense for the RAF BC to go in that range of altitudes since it tried to avoid deadly flak/searchlights and on the other hand, could had been much harder to hit targets from 25k, 30k feet at night given nocturnal bombing methods and techniques of the day.
Don't you think gentlemen?

 

• Mar 24, 2013

• #28

G

Greyman

Tech Sergeant

1,868

1,580

Jan 31, 2009

When your best defense against the enemy is hiding in the darkness, its best to take advantage of that third dimension. If the bomber crews stuck to the same altitude operation after operation, that would make the flak, fighter and searchlight crews' jobs a heck of a lot easier.

A good summary of one tour here - The WWII Diary of Lancaster Pilot Bruce Johnston

13,500
7,000
14,000
11,500
12,500
7,800
12,000
16,000
9,500
20,000
21,000
20,000
18,000 (daylight)
4,200 (daylight)
8,400
13,000
15,000 (daylight)
8,400
20,000
20,000
18,200
18,000
8,000 (daylight)
17,000 (daylight)
17,000
9,000
3,500 (dropped dummy paratroops)

airminded, I didn't go through the operations with a fine-tooth comb, but I think the trend will be:
- area bombing operation against German city centres with incendiaries and cookies (poor ballistic/aiming qualities) = highest altitudes
- operation against specific target (like a V1 facility) with thousand pound bombs = lower altitudes

 

• Mar 24, 2013

• #29

airminded88

Airman 1st Class

260

70

Mar 11, 2013

Texas, United States

That's some great information you have shared Greyman.

Appreciate it mate!

It really makes sense sending waves of bombers on different altitudes and creating as much confusion and strain as possible to German defenses.