B-17vsLancaster

[plan_D]

Britain is a big island, but airfields were like 5 miles square at most. Being 50 miles off course, you've missed it. I'm still going to say within like 30 miles.

 

[Erich]

I am coming on this interesting thread rather late but hopefully this will apply.............

what was the reason to remove the belly turret from the Lanc ?

thank you

Erich ~

 

[Lightning Guy]

The belly turret on the Lanc was similar to the early belly mounts used on the B-17 or the B-25 (if you are familiar with that design). The turret itself was rather limited in utility (traverse was only 100 degrees to either side of centerline). Additionally, the gunner had to site through a perisope which caused marked disoreintation and nausea. Plus his field of vision was very small making him next to useless as a lookout. Some Lancs, the Canadian No. 6 Group I believe, ended up using a manual .50 cal or .303 cal instead of the gun turret. It made for a much larger field of vision but precluded the carrying of H2S.

 

[Gemhorse]

Besides that, it allowed the Lancaster to carry more bombs than B-17's...

 

[plan_D]

I think Gemhorses reason was the main one.

 

[Lightning Guy]

Removing the turret had nothing to do with it. Removing the turret, ammunition, and gunner saved a few hundred to maybe a thousand pounds. The Lanc being able to carry a larger bombload was primarily due to the larger bomb bay and the fact that the Merlins on the Lanc were putting out about 200hp more each than the R-1830s on the B-17.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

it was because of the large bomb bay that there was very little room, the plane was 69ft, the bomb bay was 33ft!!!!!!!!