wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
the lancaster kicks ass said:
Well that's a start but we need to keep in mind the basic capabilities are so close except for the optamization required for their respective roles.
wmaxt
Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3
- Thread starter DerAdlerIstGelandet
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
Well that's a start but we need to keep in mind the basic capabilities are so close except for the optamization required for their respective roles.
wmaxt
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i fail to see how their baisic abilities are similar when the lanc is technically superior in almost every respect??
and here are all the lancaster marks, although most of them were just the canadians being picky, and i've tried to include numbers made where possible as a guide.........
Mk.I (3,444)
Mk. or B.I (special) (converted for heavy bomb operations)
Mk. or B.I (FE) (tropicalised for use against the tiger force)
PR.I (converted for the photo. recon. role)
Mk.I (Western Union) (54 lancasters were to be supplied to the French Navy's Aeronavale, 32 of these were Mk.Is without dorsal turrets, the rest we will meet later)
Mk.II (300)
Mk.III (3,020)
ASR.III (converted to carry a airborn lifeboat IIA for the air-sea rescue role)
MR.III/GR.III (converted for the martitme reconnaissance role)
Mks.IV V (later became lincolns I II)
Mk.VI (8; converted from Mk.IIIs with merlin 85 engines, capable of 348mph)
Mk.VII (Interim) (this designation was not officially reconised but was widely accepted for 50 lancaster Mk.Is intended to be fitted with the Martin mid-upper turret, however late delivery meant they were eventually fitted with the standard Fraser-Nash turret)
Mk.VII/Mk.VII (FE) (180; Built by austin and essentially a Mk.I with the Martin mid-uppser turret)
Mk.VII (Western Union) (yes we met 32 of the 54 lancs to be supplied to france earlier, the remaining 22 were Mk.VII (Western Union) and were not fitted with the mid upper turret, however these were later renamed Mk.I (Modified) )
Mk.X (430)
Lancaster XPP (lancs converted for service with Trans Canada Airlines)
The following are all canadian post war conversions of Mk.Xs. The "Mk." was scrapped and arabic numerals were used.
Lancaster 10-AR (Artic Recon. with longer nose and additional RADAR and camera equiptment)
Lancaster 10-BR (Bomber Recon. version)
Lancaster 10-DC (2; Converted to carry two Ryan Firebee Drones)
Lancaster 10-MR/MP (Maritme Recon/Maritime Patrol)
Lancaster 10-N (3; flying navigation training classrooms)
Lancaster 10-O (1; test bed for Avro Orenda engines mounted in outer nacelles)
Lancaster 10-P (9; converted for photographic mapping and Recon.)
Lancaster 10-S ("Standard" designation given to lancs intended for museum or display services, and to supply spares for active aircraft)
Lancaster 10-SR (8; converted for Air-Sea rescue duties)
Lancaster 10-U (Held in stock unmodified, lancs could be drawn from this stock and modified as nessisairy)
and so concludes your crash course in all marks of the lancaster, below are some pictures of some of the different marks of some of the aircraft listed above...............
and here are all the lancaster marks, although most of them were just the canadians being picky, and i've tried to include numbers made where possible as a guide.........
Mk.I (3,444)
Mk. or B.I (special) (converted for heavy bomb operations)
Mk. or B.I (FE) (tropicalised for use against the tiger force)
PR.I (converted for the photo. recon. role)
Mk.I (Western Union) (54 lancasters were to be supplied to the French Navy's Aeronavale, 32 of these were Mk.Is without dorsal turrets, the rest we will meet later)
Mk.II (300)
Mk.III (3,020)
ASR.III (converted to carry a airborn lifeboat IIA for the air-sea rescue role)
MR.III/GR.III (converted for the martitme reconnaissance role)
Mks.IV V (later became lincolns I II)
Mk.VI (8; converted from Mk.IIIs with merlin 85 engines, capable of 348mph)
Mk.VII (Interim) (this designation was not officially reconised but was widely accepted for 50 lancaster Mk.Is intended to be fitted with the Martin mid-upper turret, however late delivery meant they were eventually fitted with the standard Fraser-Nash turret)
Mk.VII/Mk.VII (FE) (180; Built by austin and essentially a Mk.I with the Martin mid-uppser turret)
Mk.VII (Western Union) (yes we met 32 of the 54 lancs to be supplied to france earlier, the remaining 22 were Mk.VII (Western Union) and were not fitted with the mid upper turret, however these were later renamed Mk.I (Modified) )
Mk.X (430)
Lancaster XPP (lancs converted for service with Trans Canada Airlines)
The following are all canadian post war conversions of Mk.Xs. The "Mk." was scrapped and arabic numerals were used.
Lancaster 10-AR (Artic Recon. with longer nose and additional RADAR and camera equiptment)
Lancaster 10-BR (Bomber Recon. version)
Lancaster 10-DC (2; Converted to carry two Ryan Firebee Drones)
Lancaster 10-MR/MP (Maritme Recon/Maritime Patrol)
Lancaster 10-N (3; flying navigation training classrooms)
Lancaster 10-O (1; test bed for Avro Orenda engines mounted in outer nacelles)
Lancaster 10-P (9; converted for photographic mapping and Recon.)
Lancaster 10-S ("Standard" designation given to lancs intended for museum or display services, and to supply spares for active aircraft)
Lancaster 10-SR (8; converted for Air-Sea rescue duties)
Lancaster 10-U (Held in stock unmodified, lancs could be drawn from this stock and modified as nessisairy)
and so concludes your crash course in all marks of the lancaster, below are some pictures of some of the different marks of some of the aircraft listed above...............
Attachments
-
mk.x_dc__kb851__carrying_two_ryan_firebee_drones_680.jpg -
mk.x_vr-r__kb772___ropey__419_sqn_175.jpg -
mk.vi_-_only_about_8_of_these_aircraft_were_used_by_the_raf_and_then_only_in_certain_pff__pathfinder -
mk.iii_oj-c__pb509__149__east_india__sqn_at_tree-lined_methwold._note_tail_markings_646.jpg -
mk.ii_156.jpg -
mk.i__special___yz-p___pd133__617_sqn_at_woodhall_spa__spring_194_100.jpg -
mk.i_gi-r__hk614__622_sqn_over_east_anglia_autumn_1944_941.jpg
Nonskimmer
Captain
I like that last pic. I didn't have that one.
And by "picky", I know you meant "thorough".
And by "picky", I know you meant "thorough".
KraziKanuK
Banned
- 792
- Jan 26, 2005
Nonskimmer said:I like that last pic. I didn't have that one.
And by "picky", I know you meant "thorough".
We can hope so.
Now that Mk X of 419, with the shark mouths, is one nice looking Lanc.
Lanc,
Do you have the Lanc manual put out by the RAF Museum? Other books in the series include one for the Mossie, Spit and Hurrie. I also believe there is one for the Hallie.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Nice Shots Lanc - Like the one with the Firebees - I worked for Ryan as a contractor for about a year - that was one of my programs....
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
you didn't actually work with the lancs did you?? what else can you tell me about the drones??
and thanks KK for saying that lanc looked good i think she looks great but so far i think you're the only one who agrees!
and yeah i've got that lanc munual, although i thought the only other ones were for the spit and hurri?? i didn't know there was a mossie and halibag one too??
and thanks KK for saying that lanc looked good i think she looks great but so far i think you're the only one who agrees!
and yeah i've got that lanc munual, although i thought the only other ones were for the spit and hurri?? i didn't know there was a mossie and halibag one too??
Nonskimmer
Captain
Hey wait. I like the looks of the Lanc too ya know. I don't think she was the best looking plane ever to fly, but I don't think she was exactly ugly.
Of course the maple leaf spruces it up even more.
Oh, and the shark mouths look goofy.
Of course the maple leaf spruces it up even more.
Oh, and the shark mouths look goofy.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
we were just talking about that lanc with the sharks mouths.....
Nonskimmer
Captain
Previous comment edited to make lanc look foolish. 
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
the lancaster kicks ass said:
No - didn't do the Lancs - I'M NOT THAT OLD!
WHen I worked for Teledyne Ryan, I dealt with the suppliers that made the sub-assemblies. Even though there were thousands of these built and they were reusable, there was a limit on their airframes, usually 10 flights. At that point the operator took a "skin shot" and actually destroyed the target.
Both Firebee and Super Firebee are conventionally constructed, Ryan started using honeycomb and composites in some of the wing and fuselage components. When they are launched a drone operator (who is flying in the mother aircraft) is controlling them....
Ironically I got offered another job and went to work for a company that operated and maintained the DC-130s used to launch the Fire Bees. We didn't handle them (another contractor did that) but the drone operator and aircrew worked for us.
On numerous occasions I got to go on missions with these guys, I did get a chance to go on a drone launch. When they launched them they drop from the pylon and immediately light up and WHOOSH! they're gone! The day I saw this, I watched them launch and they shot away from us. About 5 seconds later I caught something from the corner of my eye - like a both of lightning 2 F-14s shot by us probably at 600+ knots chasing the drones! All this happened in the matter of seconds, so fast I didn't have time to grab a camera!
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
sounds good and thanks for the info......
very mature skimmey.........
very mature skimmey.........
Nonskimmer
Captain
Tee-hee.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i wonder if sycom3's ever coming back??
syscom3
Pacific Historian
yes, 10+ .50cals did help the defence of the B-17, however it did not stop them getting shot down in very large numbers and it reduced their payload- allot. Is having so many payload reducing alomost pointless defensive guns really justified??
- Better to go into a fight with 10 heavy MG's than a paltry 8 light MG's. Plus the added weight was insignificant.
yes, the B-17 did fly higher than the lanc, this also required a huge form up time over england to get to hight, and still didn't stop them getting intercepted at all, also, how many problems did the B-17 have with flying at altitude?? how many crew men suffered and could not do their job at that hight?? how many times did guns stop working at that hight?? i'm not saying that altitude's a bad thing, i'm just trying to get you to see that it's not everything...........
- Forming up didnt take that much time. Plus the men were trained to work at high altitude, and the plane was designed to work at those altitudes. No Problem. Always better to be at high altitude where its tougher to be intercepted and where only heavy flak can be used.
yes, the B-17 did have a co-pilot, it had allot of other crew too, so whenever a lanc was shot down, we lost 7 men, when a B-17 was shot down, you often lost 10+ no co-pilot can save a plane that's been blown to bits, and lanc pilots often taught their flight engineers how to fly the plane, there are even stories of flight engineers flying their damaged planes all the way back to England............
- A flight engineer is not a pilot. Always better to have two guys in the cockpit. Not every plane is blown to bits in the air (maybe Lancs were?). In the brutal logic of fighting an air war, gunners and flight engineers were a dime a dozen. The "skill" positions took many months to be proficient. If the Lanc lost its pilot..... all were lost. If the B17 or -24 lost its pilot, there were always another there to fly the mission.
and yes radials are more damage resistant than inlines, in the B-17's case, they're also less powerfull.........
- The Merlin was more powerfull, the radials used on the -17 and -24 were more reliable. Plus the radials had better high altitude performance than the merlins. Its a trade off..... slightly more power vs. better reliability.
yes, daylight bombing is inherintley more accurate than night bombing, that DOES NOT mean however that the B-17 was always accurate, and also may i remind you of two points- firstly that when city bombing accuracy is not always nessisairy, and secondly, 617 Sqn, a squadron of lancasters, became the most accurate heavy bomber squadron of the war..........
- B17's and B24's had their missions where they were accurate, and missions were they missed. Just Like the RAF. Statistically, a daylight bombing mission was more accurate for the small and middle sized targets than a nightime mission.
and i agree with you saying the B-29 was the best bomber of the war, everyone will agree with that, however that is where the similarities in our lists stop.
so, as i see it you have managed to make 5 somewhat weak points in support of the B-17, i've decided that i'll post some of the arguments in favour of the lancaster, because you obviously loved them so much you ignored them
- the lancaster bombed sucessfully by day and night (which you seem to think is the mark of a great bomber)
- B17 and B24 could be used both day and night. lancaster was a sitting duck in the day.
-the lancaster was faster than the B-17
- Point for the lanc
-the lancaster could carry a significantly higher payload than the B-17
- Point for the lanc
-the lancaster could carry this higher payload considderably further than the B-17
-the lancaster was more manouverable than the B-17
- B17 could fly faster and was far more maneuverable at altitudes between 26,000 ft and 35,000 ft (Lanc didnt fly that high, hehehehehe)
-the lancaster was more versatile than the B-17, as proved by the various roles and bombing missions she performed
- B17 was used in lots of roles in the Pacific. Did your Lanc ever do low level night time anti-shipping missions?
-the lancaster remained in service longer than the B-17
- I dont know how to respond to this. Was Britain so broke after WW2 they needed to use an obsolete bomber?
-the lancaster was used in more air arms around the world than the B-17
- - I dont know how to respond to this? Perhaps the US didnt have colonies to arm and equip?
-the lancaster was converted to a very sucessfull long range transport that was used not only as the main british transport in the Berlin airlift but became the personal transport of the prime minister and the King of a large empire, the B-17 however, was not.......
- Bombers are bombers, cargo planes are cargo planes. You used Lancs, while we used C54's and Connies. While your PM flew in a Lanc, our presidents flew in style, hehehhehehe
-an evolution of the lancaster wasd used sucessfully as a civilian transport
- - I dont know how to respond to this? Perhaps American already had a huge fleet of C47's and C54's?
-the lancaster gave birth to bombers and maritime patrol aircraft that served into the 80's, the B-17 didn't........
- Are you saying that Britain used a 1930's airframe as a basis for jet aircraft? No wonder American aviation industry was so superior in the 50's and 60's
-the lancaster bought into service some of the most advanced electronic warfare equiptment around at the time, the B-17 however, did not.......
- B17's were equipped with same equipment for specialized missions
- Better to go into a fight with 10 heavy MG's than a paltry 8 light MG's. Plus the added weight was insignificant.
yes, the B-17 did fly higher than the lanc, this also required a huge form up time over england to get to hight, and still didn't stop them getting intercepted at all, also, how many problems did the B-17 have with flying at altitude?? how many crew men suffered and could not do their job at that hight?? how many times did guns stop working at that hight?? i'm not saying that altitude's a bad thing, i'm just trying to get you to see that it's not everything...........
- Forming up didnt take that much time. Plus the men were trained to work at high altitude, and the plane was designed to work at those altitudes. No Problem. Always better to be at high altitude where its tougher to be intercepted and where only heavy flak can be used.
yes, the B-17 did have a co-pilot, it had allot of other crew too, so whenever a lanc was shot down, we lost 7 men, when a B-17 was shot down, you often lost 10+ no co-pilot can save a plane that's been blown to bits, and lanc pilots often taught their flight engineers how to fly the plane, there are even stories of flight engineers flying their damaged planes all the way back to England............
- A flight engineer is not a pilot. Always better to have two guys in the cockpit. Not every plane is blown to bits in the air (maybe Lancs were?). In the brutal logic of fighting an air war, gunners and flight engineers were a dime a dozen. The "skill" positions took many months to be proficient. If the Lanc lost its pilot..... all were lost. If the B17 or -24 lost its pilot, there were always another there to fly the mission.
and yes radials are more damage resistant than inlines, in the B-17's case, they're also less powerfull.........
- The Merlin was more powerfull, the radials used on the -17 and -24 were more reliable. Plus the radials had better high altitude performance than the merlins. Its a trade off..... slightly more power vs. better reliability.
yes, daylight bombing is inherintley more accurate than night bombing, that DOES NOT mean however that the B-17 was always accurate, and also may i remind you of two points- firstly that when city bombing accuracy is not always nessisairy, and secondly, 617 Sqn, a squadron of lancasters, became the most accurate heavy bomber squadron of the war..........
- B17's and B24's had their missions where they were accurate, and missions were they missed. Just Like the RAF. Statistically, a daylight bombing mission was more accurate for the small and middle sized targets than a nightime mission.
and i agree with you saying the B-29 was the best bomber of the war, everyone will agree with that, however that is where the similarities in our lists stop.
so, as i see it you have managed to make 5 somewhat weak points in support of the B-17, i've decided that i'll post some of the arguments in favour of the lancaster, because you obviously loved them so much you ignored them
- the lancaster bombed sucessfully by day and night (which you seem to think is the mark of a great bomber)
- B17 and B24 could be used both day and night. lancaster was a sitting duck in the day.
-the lancaster was faster than the B-17
- Point for the lanc
-the lancaster could carry a significantly higher payload than the B-17
- Point for the lanc
-the lancaster could carry this higher payload considderably further than the B-17
-the lancaster was more manouverable than the B-17
- B17 could fly faster and was far more maneuverable at altitudes between 26,000 ft and 35,000 ft (Lanc didnt fly that high, hehehehehe)
-the lancaster was more versatile than the B-17, as proved by the various roles and bombing missions she performed
- B17 was used in lots of roles in the Pacific. Did your Lanc ever do low level night time anti-shipping missions?
-the lancaster remained in service longer than the B-17
- I dont know how to respond to this. Was Britain so broke after WW2 they needed to use an obsolete bomber?
-the lancaster was used in more air arms around the world than the B-17
- - I dont know how to respond to this? Perhaps the US didnt have colonies to arm and equip?
-the lancaster was converted to a very sucessfull long range transport that was used not only as the main british transport in the Berlin airlift but became the personal transport of the prime minister and the King of a large empire, the B-17 however, was not.......
- Bombers are bombers, cargo planes are cargo planes. You used Lancs, while we used C54's and Connies. While your PM flew in a Lanc, our presidents flew in style, hehehhehehe
-an evolution of the lancaster wasd used sucessfully as a civilian transport
- - I dont know how to respond to this? Perhaps American already had a huge fleet of C47's and C54's?
-the lancaster gave birth to bombers and maritime patrol aircraft that served into the 80's, the B-17 didn't........
- Are you saying that Britain used a 1930's airframe as a basis for jet aircraft? No wonder American aviation industry was so superior in the 50's and 60's
-the lancaster bought into service some of the most advanced electronic warfare equiptment around at the time, the B-17 however, did not.......
- B17's were equipped with same equipment for specialized missions
syscom3
Pacific Historian
I was biding my time
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
Lanc, the B-17 also flew many rolls:
Lifeboat/Maritime versions
Flying Bombs
Dropped Drones as well as being drones
many different locations from Alaska to the South Pole and everywhere in between.
Except for Grand Slam/Tall Boy bombs (and I'm not sure they couldn't be fitted to the 17) If modified properly a B-17 could have done it too.
Had it been set up identicaly with the Lanc it's capabilities would have been pretty close. Yes the Lanc was faster and if set up for it could carry more/larger bombs. The B-17 could fly higher, which would have saved a number of Lancs during the war if they had that capacity. Once again the set-up matters a lot.
A major reason the B-17 was more limited is that there wasn't a need to fit the B-17 to many different rolls. The assumption that it simply couldn't isn't realistic.
I have to do some research here to find out just what would constitute a Night version of the B-17 so we can compare the two on a 1 to 1 basis. I've seen numbers as high as 9/10 tons of armor/armament in a B-17, thats a lot of bombs/gas!
wmaxt
Lifeboat/Maritime versions
Flying Bombs
Dropped Drones as well as being drones
many different locations from Alaska to the South Pole and everywhere in between.
Except for Grand Slam/Tall Boy bombs (and I'm not sure they couldn't be fitted to the 17) If modified properly a B-17 could have done it too.
Had it been set up identicaly with the Lanc it's capabilities would have been pretty close. Yes the Lanc was faster and if set up for it could carry more/larger bombs. The B-17 could fly higher, which would have saved a number of Lancs during the war if they had that capacity. Once again the set-up matters a lot.
A major reason the B-17 was more limited is that there wasn't a need to fit the B-17 to many different rolls. The assumption that it simply couldn't isn't realistic.
I have to do some research here to find out just what would constitute a Night version of the B-17 so we can compare the two on a 1 to 1 basis. I've seen numbers as high as 9/10 tons of armor/armament in a B-17, thats a lot of bombs/gas!
wmaxt
DaveB.inVa
Airman 1st Class
- 225
- Dec 20, 2004
Thanks for the pic of the Mk VI.... Ive been looking for a shot of one of those for a while!!
Do you have any pictures of the Lancaster used to test the Avro Orenda engines? Ive read a little about it and only have seen one picture of this animal.
Do you have any pictures of the Lancaster used to test the Avro Orenda engines? Ive read a little about it and only have seen one picture of this animal.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
oh boy, that gave me a good laugh, and i'm curious, just out of interest how old are you??
that may be true however it is also important to remember that huge armourment was not at vital at night, for example forward firing guns are not needed as no night fighter pilot will make a head on pass at night, and you're now proberly wondering why the lanc had a forward turret, that's easy, for use in daylight and low level.........
and you think that the added weight is insignificant?? perhaps not for the guns themselves, but what about the 1.5 tons of ammo normally carried?? is that insignificant too??
that's simply not true, form up took a long time, and everyone on here will back me up on this one.........
no, but as long as he can fly the plane, as many could, who cares
all crew posistions took many moths of training, whilst yes, pilots needed more training than the rest, but all posistions needed skilled training............
so what?? the lanc didn't fly high enough for that too matter, what's your point and the merlin was just about the most reliable inline out there........
that's alright then, lancs only went for big targets
odd, she made quite a few daylight bombing missions sucessfully.........
you say the B-17 was more manouverable at 26,000ft+, i bet she still wasn't manouverable enough to use her manouverability as ones of her best and most effective defenses..........
i don't belive so, did the B-17 ever go on low level night time anti-dam missions?? and when i say low level i mean the entire distance at a height of less than 60ft........
well that was a pointless remark, the lanc remained in service so long because she was so good..........
odd, most of the other countries that used the lanc were not within the commonwealth........
if our PM and KING wanted a proper american transport, they could have had one, as it was they were happy with their VIP avro yorks, because they were so spacious.......
parhaps, but the fact the lanc could be used as an airliner, is a point for the lanc in my book.........
not at all, i'm saying the baisic design was so good that it was used as the baisis for other very sucessful designs........
Syscom3 said:
that may be true however it is also important to remember that huge armourment was not at vital at night, for example forward firing guns are not needed as no night fighter pilot will make a head on pass at night, and you're now proberly wondering why the lanc had a forward turret, that's easy, for use in daylight and low level.........
and you think that the added weight is insignificant?? perhaps not for the guns themselves, but what about the 1.5 tons of ammo normally carried?? is that insignificant too??
syscom3 said:
that's simply not true, form up took a long time, and everyone on here will back me up on this one.........
syscom3 said:
no, but as long as he can fly the plane, as many could, who cares
syscom3 said:
all crew posistions took many moths of training, whilst yes, pilots needed more training than the rest, but all posistions needed skilled training............
syscom3 said:
so what?? the lanc didn't fly high enough for that too matter, what's your point
and the merlin was just about the most reliable inline out there........that's alright then, lancs only went for big targets
odd, she made quite a few daylight bombing missions sucessfully.........
you say the B-17 was more manouverable at 26,000ft+, i bet she still wasn't manouverable enough to use her manouverability as ones of her best and most effective defenses..........
i don't belive so, did the B-17 ever go on low level night time anti-dam missions?? and when i say low level i mean the entire distance at a height of less than 60ft........
well that was a pointless remark, the lanc remained in service so long because she was so good..........
odd, most of the other countries that used the lanc were not within the commonwealth........
if our PM and KING wanted a proper american transport, they could have had one, as it was they were happy with their VIP avro yorks, because they were so spacious.......
parhaps, but the fact the lanc could be used as an airliner, is a point for the lanc in my book.........
not at all, i'm saying the baisic design was so good that it was used as the baisis for other very sucessful designs........
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
wmaxt said:
i'm just curious, the B-17's bomb bay was all of a few feet long and had a walkway through the middle, there are you intending on putting these collosal bombs??
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
oh and dave, the Lancaster 10-O picture you asked about, i only have pictures in books i'm afraid........
- Status
