Nonskimmer
Captain
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?
B-17, B-24, or Lancaster
- Thread starter elmilitaro
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Perhaps he means the tunnel gun setup, instead of a turret.
lancasterman
Airman
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
lancasterman said:
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
Master Sergeant
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
the old Sage
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
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
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
Pacific Historian
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.
The RAF didnt have that luxury.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
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 aircrewsyscom3 said:
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.
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
Pacific Historian
US could put more tons on target because we bombed during the day. Your targets were whole cities. Hard to miss.
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.
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
Chief Master Sergeant
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
Pacific Historian
plan_D said:
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?
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
Pacific Historian
Hop said:
True, but there also were many targets that the AAF struck that were not in urban area's.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
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.
I dont find it a shame at all. In fact I think it was appropriate all things considered.
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.
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
Pacific Historian
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.
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.
