Best overall bomber ww2

[rochie]

This thread pains me to be honest, though I cannot tear myself away from it.

The Lancaster was a marvellous aeroplane. The best heavy bomber available to the allies for most of the war. It flew marvellously, it carried everything it was asked to and at a stroke it made (in the eyes of Harris) every other heavy bomber in the RAF obsolete when it appeared (yes, including the Halifax).

It was also extremely rugged and survivable (and the many posts I have seen across orther threads which seem to say the opposite mystify me).

Legion are the tales of Lancasters returning with significant chunks missing, rear turrets or even noses blown, or sometines knocked, off, huge holes in the wing, even a Lanc returning to base on one engine!

However, the B-29 is *quite obviously* an aircraft of the next technological generation. Its performance and capabilities were superior in every way, it is contemporary with a generation of heavy bombers that the British industry designed, but could not build owing to the fact that there was not enough capacity to build the Lancs we urgently needed AND produce a replacement, hence the decision to built the Lancaster IV, or Lincoln, as a minimum change development whilst designs like the Avro 680, complete with tricycle landing gears and all the other mod cons, had to remain as brochures.This was why, when we needed a bigger, faster, better bomber to bridge the gap until the V bombers came along we bought the B-29.

Every post giving rightful justification to the superiority of the B-29 looks like a boot in the reputation of the Lancaster. I am certain this is not the intended effect, but the intransigence being demonstrated on the other side of the argument makes such an approach from the B-29 side unavoidable, and this is what pains me.

one of the best post's i've read on this forum.
100% agree Waynos

 

[Lucky13]

I hope that it doesn't sound that I'm putting the Lancaster down, if it does, I do sincerely apologise for it. I hold them both in the same high regard for the work that they did during those dark years, without either the Allies whould have fought for possible somewhat longer. Both bombers did an excellent job, a job that they designed to do, even if in different theatres of the war, both were perfectly suited for their respective area of operation....

 

[parsifal]

Just some notes on the range and payload capabilities of the Lancaster

The specially modified Lanc carrying the 22000 lb Grand Slam bombs had a range of 745 miles
With a 14000 lb warload the aircraft had a range of 865 miles
With the standard 10000 lb bombloadf, the aircraft had a range of 1040 miles. That was enough to reach the eastern borders of Austria incidentally
With a reduced bombload of 7000lb, and carrying extra fuel, the type had anoperational range of 2680 miles (2680 out, and 2680 back). That would be approaching the capability to bomb New York from bases in England I believe.

The contemporary (in terms of design) to the Lancaster in the German camp, was the He 177 A-1. The A-3 subtype appeared more than 18 months after the Lancaster, whilst the a-5 was more than 2 years younger than the original Lancasters. The He 177 showed greater developmental progress than the Lancaster, since it went from a near disaster in July 1942, to a potentially succesful type in early to mid 1944. It had a lot of promise in my opinion, and is badly maligned in our western accounts. But in my opinion, if you compare apples to apples, then you really have to compare the A-5 subtype to either the Lancastrian or the Lincoln which were more its contemporaies than the 1941-2 design that was the Lancaster.

 

[buffnut453]

But in my opinion, if you compare apples to apples, then you really have to compare the A-5 subtype to either the Lancastrian or the Lincoln which were more its contemporaies than the 1941-2 design that was the Lancaster.

Hi Parsifal,

Slightly confused by your last point. The Lancastrian was the transport version of the Lanc which, presumably, doesn't compare with any of the bombers we're discussing. Agree with the Lincoln (or Lancaster MkVII if you prefer).

 

[parsifal]

Youre right, my mistake

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Someone mentioned the possibility of sending Lancasters (and Lincolns) to the Pacific and suggested this never happened, and would never happen.

Its true that it never happened, but it was planned to happen, ands some units (not the Lancaster units) were already in the PTO when the "Tiger Force" as it was named, was disbanded October 1945.

Yes, this was definitely true as there were still large pieces of real-estate in Japanese hands on August 6, 1945 and if the fire bombings of the mainland would not have brought the Japanese to negations, they would have had to been extracted by force and the Tiger Force would of served accordingly.

 

[Vincenzo]

Just for clear talking of design 177 and Manchester are contemporary, the evolution of two bombers had different time so Manchester became fightning in winter 41 and 177 was in development. the british have changed to a four engined configuration and Lancaster go in fightning in spring 42 and 177 was still in development (need fall '43 (but a early tour in eastern front with the development unit). So it's out of doubt that at pratical purpouse 177 it's newest of Lancaster (but not the design the long development maybe effected to too advanced design for the time (but not too much). so it's right that we compare 177 A3 and A5 with contemporary Lancaster variant, but remember that A5 was fighning in spring '44 and Lincoln go to unit in summer '45 and never fightning in that war

 

[Juha]

Hello Kurfürst
So it seems that you don't have any info on bomber loads used in actual combat mission other than what I have already given.

Quote:" Penetration depth = 1/3 maximal range"

Based on what? IIRC that was a USAAF rule of thumb, but not knowing the actual word used in the German report it's difficult to say what was its meaning. And of course there was no info on load carried if any.

And no comment of the unambiguous fact that for some reason the average speed was 50km/h lower than that achieved by the test organisation.

But if you opinion is correct what is your opinion why Germans bothered to move KG 1 to airfields just west of Köningsberg/Kaliningrad to drop one ton bombs per plane on targets around Velikiye Luki with all the problems mentioned in Griehl Dressel? After all Velikiye Luki was only appr. 700km further east from Köningsberg/Kaliningrad. On the other hand Lancs seem as average have carried 4 ton bombloads to Berlin, appr 900km away from their bases. The problem is of course that we seems to have limited amount of info on the actual bombloads used by 177s other than on some operations during the Steinbock operations and during some maritime strikes. On the other hand those operations consisted a significant part of the combat ops of 177s.

Juha

 

[Juha]

Hello Vincenzo
Manchester showed that Germans were not the only ones who suffered from coupled engines. There is conflicting info on who, other than Udet, were responsible to that that it took so long for Germans to switch over to normal 4 engine confriguation.

Juha

 

[Kurfürst]

Hello Kurfürst
So it seems that you don't have any info on bomber loads used in actual combat mission other than what I have already given.

I didn't bother to look up, as I believe its irrelevant. The Heinkel 177 could carry a bit over 7 tons, thats a simple fact. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it. Opinions, well, everyone has them.

And no comment of the unambiguous fact that for some reason the average speed was 50km/h lower than that achieved by the test organisation.

So why did they achieve lower avarage speeds than what others could achieve?

But if you opinion is correct what is your opinion why Germans bothered to move KG 1 to airfields just west of Köningsberg/Kaliningrad to drop one ton bombs per plane on targets around Velikiye Luki with all the problems mentioned in Griehl Dressel? After all Velikiye Luki was only appr. 700km further east from Köningsberg/Kaliningrad.

So in your logic, if I drive my car on one day at 50 km/h on a road it also means I can't ever drive it at 200 km/h...? How silly is that?

As you mentioned, the Germans could have a myriad of reasons to that - for example, lighten the plane enough so it could climb to higher altitude where Soviet fighters could not really intercept them (as He 177s did over England a year before, a rather successfull tactic I might add), poor airfields or if the aircraft were configured to long range fuel configuration, carrying fuel tanks in two out of three bomb bays, and they did not have time/possibility to convert them back to max. bombload configuration. Or perhaps, shortage of bombs, or any other reason.

In the end, Velikiye Luki's railroad junction (IIRC that was the target) got 87 tons of bombs and I am not sure if any heavy bomber was lost in the process.

On the other hand Lancs seem as average have carried 4 ton bombloads to Berlin, appr 900km away from their bases.

Well if they would have used He 177s, they would have been able to deliver 7.2 tons instead...

The problem is of course that we seems to have limited amount of info on the actual bombloads used by 177s other than on some operations during the Steinbock operations and during some maritime strikes. On the other hand those operations consisted a significant part of the combat ops of 177s.

Juha

Its not really a problem, because we know exactly how much the 177 could carry, and how far. We don't have to guess or estimate the capabilities based on a few examples, because we have the exact figures, how many bombs could be delivered, and to how far..

 

[Kurfürst]

The contemporary (in terms of design) to the Lancaster in the German camp, was the He 177 A-1. The A-3 subtype appeared more than 18 months after the Lancaster, whilst the a-5 was more than 2 years younger than the original Lancasters.

Strictly speaking it is correct, but in practical terms, it makes very little difference in the comparison - the He 177A-1 and A-5 differed in little, bombload was the same on all variants, the defensive armament got a little tougher on the A-3 and A-5. Plus they were some 10 km/h faster due to the new engines... overall, marginal.

The Lancaster AFAIK pretty much remained the same, it just had more electric stuff on board in 1944 than it had in 1942.. primary specs - bombload, speed, range etc. - was very much the same to my knowledge, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong in this.

 

[NZTyphoon]

I didn't bother to look up, as I believe its irrelevant. The Heinkel 177 could carry a bit over 7 tons, thats a simple fact. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it. Opinions, well, everyone has them.
...(as He 177s did over England a year before, a rather successfull tactic I might add)...Well if they would have used He 177s, they would have been able to deliver 7.2 tons instead...

Attacks on Britain by He 177s started January 21; units involved: II./KG40, I./KG100 (less 3 Staffel), III./KG100 (less 8 Staffel) Total serviceable = 31 (20 March 1944) [The Blitz Then and Now Vol 3 p. 324]

For the raid on the night of 21/22 the attack was focused on London;( I./KG 40 and I./KG 100 only):12 He 177s were flown from Chateaudun "Each of the heavy bombers (He 177) was able to carry two 2500 Kg bombs (11,000 lbs, 4.9 tons) to London". [p. 320] Chateaudun - London = 244 miles (393 km) Chateaudun airports distances to... London City airport (closest to centre of London) There are also accounts of operations that show that experienced crews could fly with up to 13,250 lbs of bombs.

Two He 177s lost (one crashed on outward flight 'technical failure', one to RAF Mosquito.[pp.321, 330]. Of the 500 tonnes of bombs dropped during 447 sorties of all German bombers, about 268 tonnes fell on land and 32 tonnes fell on London.[p.321] After this raid the He 177s operated from Rheine, about twice the distance to London from Chateaudun.

Question, assuming that the He 177 was capable of flying an equivalent distance of a raid from England to Berlin and back with 7 tons of bombs are there any recorded instances of such missions being carried out?

 

[parsifal]

Strictly speaking it is correct, but in practical terms, it makes very little difference in the comparison - the He 177A-1 and A-5 differed in little, bombload was the same on all variants, the defensive armament got a little tougher on the A-3 and A-5. Plus they were some 10 km/h faster due to the new engines... overall, marginal.
The He 177 A-1 had a defensive armament of 1x7.9 mm mg in in the nose, a 20mm MGFF in the ventral gondola, 2x7.9mm Mg 81 in the aft ventral gondola, a 13mm MG in a remote controlled forward dorsal position, and a gimble mounted 13mm MG 131 in the tail.

In summary thats 3 x 7.9mm, 2 x 13mm and 1 x 20mm

Its max offensive warload was 48x110 lb bombs, or 12x551 lb,or 6x1102 lb bombs or six 2205 lb bombs. Looking at these various loadouts, its carrying capacity could be variously described as 5280, 6612, or 13230, depending on the ordinance carried. The aircraft was initially rated to carry (typically) bombs of up to 2205lb size but this was later modified and increased to bombs up 3968lb capacity . Its range carrying its full warload was 745 miles

The types medium range (typically described as 1988 miles), it could again carry a mix of loadouts, of 110, 551, 1102 or 2205 lb bombs, ech having a maximum tonnage of 3520, 4408, 4408 or 8820 lbs.

Its long range load out (3480 miles), it could carry 1760, 2204, 2204 or 4410 (again depending on the ordinance).

Now comparing that to the A-5...It was designed primarily as a maritime strike aircraft with reduced carrying capacity, but greatly increased the endurnace. Cruising speed and max speed actually dropped in the A-5, once deployed on operations. Its crusing speed was 258 mph (A-1 had a cruising speed of 267 mph). Max speed was 303 mph (A-1 had a max speed of 317 mph) . I suspect this was due to the addional armament, and the mounting of launch points outside the fuselage.

It was designed for primarily carried external warloads, such as the Lt-50 torpedo, the FX 1400 Fritz X and the HS 293 guided bombs

Because of its specialized roles it actually tended to carry a somewhat lower warload than either the A-1 or A-3 bomber variants. It typically would carry 2 HS 293 missiles, or 2 x Fritz X, simulataneously it could carry 16 x 110 lb bombs, or 4 x 551 lb bombs, or 2 x 1102 lb bombs. The HS 293 weighed 1700 lbs, whilst the Fritz X weighed 2260 lbs. Adding all this up, the A-5 typical warload weighed between 3400 lb to 6734 lb

Defensive armament, 3 x 7.9mm MG, 4 x 13mm MG and 1 x 20mm cannon. The layout was based on the A-1, but with some additional firing positions

With these arrangements the A-5 had a listed endurance (ie one way) of between 3100 and 3417 miles.


I have to disagree with you therfore...there were major differences between the A-1 and A-5....in terms of mission specs, equipment and ordinance carried

The Lancaster AFAIK pretty much remained the same, it just had more electric stuff on board in 1944 than it had in 1942.. primary specs - bombload, speed, range etc. - was very much the same to my knowledge, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong in this.

Too much of an oversimplification. Whilst the characteristics of the aircraft did not progress as spectaculalry as the He 177, it developed a wide range of electronic aids as you say, but also saw a massive development of differnt and increasingly deadly loadouts. The list is perhaps the greatest mix of ordinance types in the history of WWII bombers.

I dont consider myself an expert on Lancaster development either, perhaps someone can step in and describe what the major performance developments of the lancaster were

 

[Zniperguy114]

No offense to anyone, but the calibre of the german guns isn't 7.9mm by 57mm, its 7.92mm by 57mm, and agian, no offense to anyone.

 

[Juha]

Hello Kurfürst
Quote:"Well if they would have used He 177s, they would have been able to deliver 7.2 tons instead... "

But the question is did 177 ever dropped 7,2 tons bombload in anger? It seems that none of us have any proof of that, on the other hand we know for sure that Lancs dropped 10tons loads in anger and also made hits to pinpoint targets with that load.

Juha

 

[Glider]

As you mentioned, the Germans could have a myriad of reasons to that - for example, lighten the plane enough so it could climb to higher altitude where Soviet fighters could not really intercept them (as He 177s did over England a year before, a rather successfull tactic I might add)...

Kurfurst
Can you tell me which book this is quoted in. You have mentioned it in the past I just cannot find your posting.

 

[Vincenzo]

Strictly speaking it is correct, but in practical terms, it makes very little difference in the comparison - the He 177A-1 and A-5 differed in little, bombload was the same on all variants, the defensive armament got a little tougher on the A-3 and A-5. Plus they were some 10 km/h faster due to the new engines... overall, marginal.
The He 177 A-1 had a defensive armament of 1x7.9 mm mg in in the nose, a 20mm MGFF in the ventral gondola, 2x7.9mm Mg 81 in the aft ventral gondola, a 13mm MG in a remote controlled forward dorsal position, and a gimble mounted 13mm MG 131 in the tail.

In summary thats 3 x 7.9mm, 2 x 13mm and 1 x 20mm

Its max offensive warload was 48x110 lb bombs, or 12x551 lb,or 6x1102 lb bombs or six 2205 lb bombs. Looking at these various loadouts, its carrying capacity could be variously described as 5280, 6612, or 13230, depending on the ordinance carried. The aircraft was initially rated to carry (typically) bombs of up to 2205lb size but this was later modified and increased to bombs up 3968lb capacity . Its range carrying its full warload was 745 miles

The types medium range (typically described as 1988 miles), it could again carry a mix of loadouts, of 110, 551, 1102 or 2205 lb bombs, ech having a maximum tonnage of 3520, 4408, 4408 or 8820 lbs.

Its long range load out (3480 miles), it could carry 1760, 2204, 2204 or 4410 (again depending on the ordinance).

Now comparing that to the A-5...It was designed primarily as a maritime strike aircraft with reduced carrying capacity, but greatly increased the endurnace. Cruising speed and max speed actually dropped in the A-5, once deployed on operations. Its crusing speed was 258 mph (A-1 had a cruising speed of 267 mph). Max speed was 303 mph (A-1 had a max speed of 317 mph) . I suspect this was due to the addional armament, and the mounting of launch points outside the fuselage.

It was designed for primarily carried external warloads, such as the Lt-50 torpedo, the FX 1400 Fritz X and the HS 293 guided bombs

Because of its specialized roles it actually tended to carry a somewhat lower warload than either the A-1 or A-3 bomber variants. It typically would carry 2 HS 293 missiles, or 2 x Fritz X, simulataneously it could carry 16 x 110 lb bombs, or 4 x 551 lb bombs, or 2 x 1102 lb bombs. The HS 293 weighed 1700 lbs, whilst the Fritz X weighed 2260 lbs. Adding all this up, the A-5 typical warload weighed between 3400 lb to 6734 lb

Defensive armament, 3 x 7.9mm MG, 4 x 13mm MG and 1 x 20mm cannon. The layout was based on the A-1, but with some additional firing positions

With these arrangements the A-5 had a listed endurance (ie one way) of between 3100 and 3417 miles.


I have to disagree with you therfore...there were major differences between the A-1 and A-5....in terms of mission specs, equipment and ordinance carried

Parsifal i've some doubt on your description (oh i know you take it somewhere) both max speed was wrong, the A-1 load it's sure wrong for 1 ton bombs (idk for the smallest), six are too. i'm near sure that A-5 can be used like a bomber with a load as of the A-3. for board weapons your description it's for A-1/R-1, the R-2 and R-3 change the double 7.92 with a 13, the R-4 a this mod add a 2nd dorsal turret with a 13.
idk A-5 board weapons but A-3/R-1 had one 7.9 five 13 one 20 and R-2 had one 7.9 four 13 two 20 (now both MG 151)

 

[parsifal]

Hi Vincenzo

Well, if youve got a source, we can have a closer look, but simply stating that its wrong doesnt help.

My sources for that submission were

German Warplanes Of WWII, Chris Chant, Spellmount 1999

Bombers and Recon A/C, William Green, Volume 9, Mcdonalds London, 1972

Axis Aircraft Of World War II, David Mondey, Chancelor Pressm 1996


According to these sources the the internal bombays of the A-5 were partly plated over, I suspect to provide more tankage space, hence the greatly increased range for the type. Perhaps instead of carrying the specilized naval ordinance, it might be possible to carry bombs externally instead, but I dont have any information to confirm this. As far as being short on tonnage for the smaller bombers, I dont think it was a matter of how much weight the aircraft could carry, simply rather a case of how much space and hardpoints it possessed to carry the ordinance. the reference material I looked at stated that one of its warloads was 48 x 110 lb bombs, hence the calculated bombload (approx 4800 lbs) .

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The Lancaster AFAIK pretty much remained the same, it just had more electric stuff on board in 1944 than it had in 1942.. primary specs - bombload, speed, range etc. - was very much the same to my knowledge, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong in this.

As pointed out in the previous pages, there were variants with some internal structural and engine changes that did indeed increase speed and range a bit. Look at the Lancaster VII.

 

[Vincenzo]

Hi Vincenzo

Well, if youve got a source, we can have a closer look, but simply stating that its wrong doesnt help.

My sources for that submission were

German Warplanes Of WWII, Chris Chant, Spellmount 1999

Bombers and Recon A/C, William Green, Volume 9, Mcdonalds London, 1972

Axis Aircraft Of World War II, David Mondey, Chancelor Pressm 1996


According to these sources the the internal bombays of the A-5 were partly plated over, I suspect to provide more tankage space, hence the greatly increased range for the type. Perhaps instead of carrying the specilized naval ordinance, it might be possible to carry bombs externally instead, but I dont have any information to confirm this. As far as being short on tonnage for the smaller bombers, I dont think it was a matter of how much weight the aircraft could carry, simply rather a case of how much space and hardpoints it possessed to carry the ordinance. the reference material I looked at stated that one of its warloads was 48 x 110 lb bombs, hence the calculated bombload (approx 4800 lbs) .

for board weaponry my source it's manuals in cockpitinstrumente.de same for A-3 max speed, same for A-1 bomb load. for A-1 max speed now i don't remember but i've read it's a little low of A-3. My consideration on A-5 as bomber are my have not a source.