Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

FLYBOYJ · Dec 10, 2005

KraziKanuK said:
syscom3 said:

Plus the Lanc was a sitting duck during daylight. At least the B24's and B17's could attempt some type of defense.

Click to expand...

Lancs did day ops in the ETO and lost no more percentage of a/c than did the B-17/B-24.

The hand held guns in the American heavies were spray and prey weapons > pretty well useless. The American heavies had an extra turret but the same number of guns in turrets as the Lanc.

Oh yes, the pilot in the Lanc could be relieved by the flight engineer, navigator or bombadier.

Should it be mentioned that night flying is much harder than day flying? Eight hour missions were common and the pilot did not need a relief pilot to replace him unlike the American heavies.

That's hogwash that the Lancaster would of been a sitting duck in the Pacific. It would of done just as well if not better than the main staple heavy bomber in the PTO, the B-24 (The B-29 was actually labeled "extra heavy")

The advantage of an extra pilot focuses around a concept called cockpit resource management (it actually existed back then but no one had a name for it). It is where the crew in the cockpit worked as a team and shared the workload during the flight process. The Lanc with one set of controls did not have that luxury. Although an FE or Naviguesser could relieve the pilot in the Lanc, its the critical time (during the bomb run, while under attack, flying and landing in the soup) where the extra crew member pays off. That's the only negative I've ever seen with the Lanc, aside from that I think she would of done very well in the PTO.

Night operations were more hazardous, but not by much, sometimes a night with a full moon lends itself better for identifying landmarks than during the day. The real hazard existed when operating in the soup and attempting to land with visibility under 3 miles, that's when an extra hand in the cockpit may save the life of the entire crew.....

the lancaster kicks ass · Dec 10, 2005

The Lancs biggest (only) advantage over the B-17 is its huge and flexible bombay making it able to carry a wider range of munitions and for shorter missions a larger quantity (not necissarily weight) as well.

you think the larger quantities was only for shorter missions, ok then, how far could the B-17 carry a grand slam, oh yeah, that's right it couldn't, you may also wish to revise you list of advantages the lanc has over the B-17............

Second the B-24 was made in greater numbers.

yes by a country with far greater production capabilities, britain produced only a handfull of planes in numbers greater than 5,000, the lanc is one of these..............

Third the B-24 had a better range

with what payload, i'm not saying you're wrong, i just wanna see figures..........

Fourth the B-17 was deemed more robust for the conditions over Germany.

by who?? was there some great Anglo-american bomber robustness report i've missed in which the USAAF and the RAF both agreed this? i don't believe so, i think what you meant was the USAAF deemed it more robust for daylight operations..........

The Lanc lost a higher percentage of aircraft, I want to say twice on a percentage/sortie basis (memory, I don't have the numbers out), over the B-17s even with the Lanc flying at night.

twice? don't be rediculous..............

from figures adler posted a long way back-

B-17 sorties= 291,508 for losses of 4,688, this gives a sortie/loos percentage of around 1.6

lanc sorties= 156,308 for losses of around 3,498 giving a sortie/loss ration of about 2.2, higher, yes, but hardly twice

now then, let's look at the ammounts carried per sortie shall we! this could be fun...........

my calculations (it is late now so i'm hoping to nip off to bed soon, however i shall be more than willing to post the figures tomorrow) show that the B-17 carried no more than 2.92 tons per sortie, wheras the lanc carried ATLEAST 4.5 tons per sortie, the actual number would infact be higher...........

and don't get me started on tonnage per aircraft lost............

A major mission, in tight formation, for 8 or more hours where you can see your enemy and cannot counter (AAA), can be just as bad. The early missions where esp stressful, you knew hundreds of fighters were waiting just for you and you didn't even have the dark to hide in. BTW those fighters got 2 or sometimes 3 runs at you.

what about 8 hours in sometimes pitch black, trying to find your way only with a map, a compas, a clock and some simple navigation aids? where you, at times, don't even know your enemy's there till he's shooting at you? where you loose formations mean every man for himself and you're up against radar guided night fighters with huge 30mm cannon?? doesn't exactily sound like a walk in the park, although quite what this has to do with the aircrafts abilities i don't know!

syscom3 · Dec 10, 2005

KraziKanuK said:
Lancs did day ops in the ETO and lost no more percentage of a/c than did the B-17/B-24.

Not entirely true. Lancs only operated during the daylight when absolute air supremecy was assured.

KraziKanuK said:
The hand held guns in the American heavies were spray and prey weapons > pretty well useless. The American heavies had an extra turret but the same number of guns in turrets as the Lanc.

In the PTO, most B17's and B24's had the belly turret removed and a tunnel gun setup was used. That still left six defensive positions, all with .50 cals. The Lanc only had .303's in three or four defensive positions.

KraziKanuK said:
Oh yes, the pilot in the Lanc could be relieved by the flight engineer, navigator or bombadier.

In the very long range missions in the PTO, the navigator and flight engineer would be quite busy themselves and wouldnt have time to relieve the pilot. You could say the bombardier could be the relief, but in fact, a pilot is a pilot, a bombardier is a bombardier.Perhaps for short periods, but not for extended time.

KraziKanuK said:
Should it be mentioned that night flying is much harder than day flying? Eight hour missions were common and the pilot did not need a relief pilot to replace him unlike the American heavies.

The US missions in the PTO were frequently done at night and were easily 15-16 hours in length. In the famous Balikpapin raids in 1943, the 380th BG flew from Darwin in late afternoon, hitting the refineries after midnight and arrived back at base after sunrise. Plus they had to penetrate a few weather fronts while doing it.

Glider · Dec 10, 2005

B17's and B24's could also only operate in daylight with air supremacy unless they wanted to take extreme losses. The level of support given to Lancaster's ad Halifax's in daylight was the same as that given to the American Planes flying similar missions. We just carried a lot more bombs for the given range than the B17.

Don't right off the defensive weapons carried by the Lancaster's. I have recently finished reading 'Conflict over the Bay' and was surprised how many times the A/S aircraft got away and/or shot down one of the attacking German Ju88 Fighters, despite being alone and outnumbered 6-8 to 1. They would have been better off with HMG's of course but don't right off the guns they had. Obviously these were not Lancaster's but were Halifax's, Whitleys and Wellingtons with similar defensive weapons.

Taking over and assisting the pilot isn't difficult and it isn't the period of time that counts, its what your doing. Landing and taking off were of course the prerogative of the Pilot but cruising is a task that can be shared. It was normal practice in Coastal Command to teach all crew members how to do all the jobs to relieve boredom and help in a crisis. I don't see why Bomber Command would do differently.

An aside. During the filming of the Dam Busters the actors were told how to start up the engines of the Lanc and and start to taxi the plane. When they got a distance from the camera a real pilot would take over for the take off. On one occasion the folding seat that RAF pilot used collapsed during the take off and the actor had to get it off the ground and circle while the Pilot could get up and take over.

Gnomey · Dec 10, 2005

Glider said:
B17's and B24's could also only operate in daylight with air supremacy unless they wanted to take extreme losses. The level of support given to Lancaster's ad Halifax's in daylight was the same as that given to the American Planes flying similar missions. We just carried a lot more bombs for the given range than the B17.

Don't right off the defensive weapons carried by the Lancaster's. I have recently finished reading 'Conflict over the Bay' and was surprised how many times the A/S aircraft got away and/or shot down one of the attacking German Ju88 Fighters, despite being alone and outnumbered 6-8 to 1. They would have been better off with HMG's of course but don't right off the guns they had. Obviously these were not Lancaster's but were Halifax's, Whitleys and Wellingtons with similar defensive weapons.

Taking over and assisting the pilot isn't difficult and it isn't the period of time that counts, its what your doing. Landing and taking off were of course the prerogative of the Pilot but cruising is a task that can be shared. It was normal practice in Coastal Command to teach all crew members how to do all the jobs to relieve boredom and help in a crisis. I don't see why Bomber Command would do differently.

An aside. During the filming of the Dam Busters the actors were told how to start up the engines of the Lanc and and start to taxi the plane. When they got a distance from the camera a real pilot would take over for the take off. On one occasion the folding seat that RAF pilot used collapsed during the take off and the actor had to get it off the ground and circle while the Pilot could get up and take over.

Agreed Glider. Both the B-17's and B-24's of the USAAF and Lanc needed fighter cover in order to complete the mission with 'acceptable' losses. Even then there were times when the USAAF heavies where attacked en masse and suffered heavy casualties despite the fighter cover. The Lanc required the same conditions to survive in daylight as the USAAF heavies, it is just that the US choose to fly them during the day and the RAF chose to fly them at night. Later in the war some Lancs where fitted with 50cal turrets so their defensive armament was being increased. I see now reason why the Lanc would not of done as well as the B-24 in the Pacific.

Interesting aside on the filming of the Dambusters Glider I didn't know that. How did the actors fare when having to take off?

Glider · Dec 10, 2005

The description given during a chat show was that he staggered into the air. The seat collapsed with the aircraft going down the runway at some speed and he simply kept it going until he could lift it off. They had been briefed on what to do in case of emergency and had been through a number of takeoffs but it was stiff drinks all round that night. Trying to remember which actor it was.

Gnomey · Dec 10, 2005

Glider said:
The description given during a chat show was that he staggered into the air. The seat collapsed with the aircraft going down the runway at some speed and he simply kept it going until he could lift it off. They had been briefed on what to do in case of emergency and had been through a number of takeoffs but it was stiff drinks all round that night. Trying to remember which actor it was.

Thanks for the info Glider, not exactly a textbook take off then, still it is something to say you have done, take off in lanc whilst piloting it. 8)

FLYBOYJ · Dec 10, 2005

Great info Glider!

The psychological benefits of having another pilot (co-pilot) is immense, but my hats off to the many Lanc pilots (some Sergent pilots) who performed with professionalism and gallantry...

Nonskimmer · Dec 10, 2005

Here, here.

Good post, Glider.

syscom3 · Dec 10, 2005

When the B17's and B24's were attacked by the German fighters that had penetrated the escorts, quite a few were shot down. But then quite a few German aircraft were also shot down in return.

Quite simply the Lanc could not defend itself duing the daytime. It was a nighttime bomber, which it performed well.

In the PTO, the Japanese fighters were still deadly and the ability of the B24's to shoot back at them effectively is what brought many a bomber crew home. The Lanc shooting at them with .303's was not going to cut it.

Another factor on why the Lanc would not have survived long in the PTO in 1943 and 1944, was those liquid cooled Merlins. A slight coolent leak from any cause would be a critical issue, because of the distances involved.

FLYBOYJ · Dec 11, 2005

syscom3 said:
In the PTO, the Japanese fighters were still deadly and the ability of the B24's to shoot back at them effectively is what brought many a bomber crew home. The Lanc shooting at them with .303's was not going to cut it.

Here I disagree - the Japanese, although aggressive were no where close to the aggressiveness and the tactics of the German Fighter command in intercepting bombers. Even throwing Kamikaze into the fray compared to the Germans they sucked!!! If the Japanese had the capability and tactics that even came close to the Germans the 20th and 21st bomber command would of lost twice as many aircraft as they did !!

syscom3 said:
Another factor on why the Lanc would not have survived long in the PTO in 1943 and 1944, was those liquid cooled Merlins. A slight coolant leak from any cause would be a critical issue, because of the distances involved.

Now there you have a point - to use a Lanc the way Lemay did to firebomb Tokyo would of been a nerve racking situation based on the glycol system of the Lanc - but at 20 or 30,000 feet I don't think it would of made a difference,

the lancaster kicks ass · Dec 11, 2005

but remember the merlin was one of the most reliable engines of the war, and the lanc could always fly on 3 engines................

and lanc pilots didn't have any problems on their own over Europe for extended missions, and if nessisary i fail to see the problem with taking along an extra pilot???

may i also compliment you on the way you avoided the points made in my earlier post, i posted that late last night when i could've been in bed, but insted i stayed up to write that, then you go and ignore it, i have an urge to continue to repost it until you acknowledge it

Quite simply the Lanc could not defend itself duing the daytime

nor could a B-17, a B-24 or most over bombers for that matter, most unescorted bombers will be dead meat against decent opposition during the day, and give me a load of crap about how the extra guns on the b-17 gave it a better chance, it may be true that it will have a better chance but that's like saying you stand a better chance of living if you're shot in the head than if your body is savagely chopped into peices, either way you're gonna die, the USAAF proved that if unescorted daylight raids will be desasters...........

The Lanc shooting at them with .303's was not going to cut it

they're japaneese planes, they're not heavily armed and armoured german interceptors, 4x .303 throwing out a few thousand rounds per minute will do very nicely thanks, it doesn't take much to bring one down and they're gonna have to get in quite close to make their pea shooters effective..............

and, just to clarify, what exactily are you arguing here?? are you doubting the lanc was the second best heavy of the war because it has no record in the pacific?? or just that you think the lanc couldn't operate in the pacific??

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Dec 11, 2005

FLYBOYJ said:
KraziKanuK said:

syscom3 said:

Plus the Lanc was a sitting duck during daylight. At least the B24's and B17's could attempt some type of defense.

Click to expand...

Lancs did day ops in the ETO and lost no more percentage of a/c than did the B-17/B-24.

The hand held guns in the American heavies were spray and prey weapons > pretty well useless. The American heavies had an extra turret but the same number of guns in turrets as the Lanc.

Oh yes, the pilot in the Lanc could be relieved by the flight engineer, navigator or bombadier.

Should it be mentioned that night flying is much harder than day flying? Eight hour missions were common and the pilot did not need a relief pilot to replace him unlike the American heavies.

Click to expand...

That's hogwash that the Lancaster would of been a sitting duck in the Pacific. It would of done just as well if not better than the main staple heavy bomber in the PTO, the B-24 (The B-29 was actually labeled "extra heavy")

The advantage of an extra pilot focuses around a concept called cockpit resource management (it actually existed back then but no one had a name for it). It is where the crew in the cockpit worked as a team and shared the workload during the flight process. The Lanc with one set of controls did not have that luxury. Although an FE or Naviguesser could relieve the pilot in the Lanc, its the critical time (during the bomb run, while under attack, flying and landing in the soup) where the extra crew member pays off. That's the only negative I've ever seen with the Lanc, aside from that I think she would of done very well in the PTO.

Night operations were more hazardous, but not by much, sometimes a night with a full moon lends itself better for identifying landmarks than during the day. The real hazard existed when operating in the soup and attempting to land with visibility under 3 miles, that's when an extra hand in the cockpit may save the life of the entire crew.....

And today we call it Crew Coordination and it has saved many lives including myself and the rest of my crew.

Good post FBJ. 8)

the lancaster kicks ass · Dec 11, 2005

sure, no one nice posts me

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Dec 11, 2005

Good post up there Lanc.....

Feel better now.

wmaxt · Dec 11, 2005

Lanc, The Lanc was a great plane and it derserves its accolades but the fact is that the Lanc was optimized for its role as was the B-17. The B-17 by virtue of its armor and aircooled engines was less vuneralbe than a Lanc durring the day. The Memphis Bell went through 9 engines, that they were hit often is not in question. Had their rolls been reversed, so to would theircapabilities and statistics reflect it.

The two planes have essentialy the same minimum and gross weights. The bomb capacity of the B-17 was similar and limited by the capacity of the bombay not the weight it could carry.

But I do have to add two advantages the Lanc had over the B-17, first the willingness to exploit that big bombay by using bombs like the Grand Slam, and the bouncing bomb for the dams. Second the British attitude that a single pilot and a 30% (your right. not twice) greater loss rate at night was acceptable.

The arguments that refer to tonns dropped etc are white wash depending on mission set up (daylite/night) to justify an argument - again had the mission been reversed so to would the statistics.

The statement that the B-17 loss rate was entirely due to escorts is very simplistic. I must remind you that the first third of the daylite bombing was without fighter cover, the next 1/3 was with inadequate fighter cover, 1 to 3 FG to cover both the trip in and the trip out, 150 fighters max, for 500 to 800 bombers, and finaly adequate fighter cover for the last third of the bombing missions.

The Lancaster was a fine aircraft and did its job extreamly well for that time and place but so was the B-17 and their capabilities were very close just mission oriented. I think the Lanc is still the second behind only the B-29 but its the bombay and British stoicism that makes the difference.

wmaxt

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Dec 11, 2005

Also good post. I pretty much agree with you on this one.

the lancaster kicks ass · Dec 12, 2005

but most of the points you make are like saying if the Queen had balls she'd be the King (sorry if that was disshonerable M'am) facts are facts, you can say if as much as you like, you can't prove it and as such is just speculation............

although you did, in a round about way, agree that the lanc was the second best bomber, and you used some big words i don't understand so i'm willing to leave it here, unless there's anyone else that would like to fight for the B-17

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Dec 12, 2005

Well here is my take on the subject. I will go ahead and say that the Lancaster was the 2nd best bomber of WW2 however all three that one could argue for the spot, ie. Lancaster, B-17, or B-24 all had there distint advantages and disadvantages and either one would be better than the others when used in certain situations.

the lancaster kicks ass · Dec 12, 2005

that's true, but that's true of anything, it could be argued that in some ways the lanc and possibly B-17 were better than the B-29 in some respects..........

Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major General

Pacific Historian

Captain

Globetrotting Surgeon General

Captain

Globetrotting Surgeon General

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Captain

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major General

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads