the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
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..............
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
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.
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.
Attachments
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Great Post!!!!
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Yes indeed, that was interesting.
Good stuff!
Indeed very intersting.
lonestarman63
Airman
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 
HUH?
lonestarman63
Airman
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
was better for the axis powers
lonestarman63
Airman
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
__________________
It still did an excellent job of dropping iron bombs down on the Germans....
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Major
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: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
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.lonestarman63 said:
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
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
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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...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
__________________
lonestarman63
Airman
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
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
