Best overall bomber ww2

[syscom3]

If the Lanc was selected to carry the bomb, its bases would have to be Okinawa. And there is the question of whether the Lanc could have gotten far enough away from the blast as to escape the shockwave.

 

[buffnut453]

Entirely agree. For its time, the lifting capacity of the Lanc was phenomenal but the B-29 was the right plane for the atomic job (including the political angle you alluded to in an earlier post). That said, derivatives of the Lanc were still operational into the 1990s (but that's a whole different story) - and yes, I know the Lincoln and Shacklebomber were very different aircraft but one only has to look at the centre-section and tail areas to realise how closely related they are to the Lanc.

I obviously missed the "Best Medium Bomber" thread - must have been hibernating that month.

 

[Jimmy Limma]

I never generalize.

I usually divide them into categories, and then, I make my selection.
Strategic bomber, dive bomber, heavy bomber, light bomber, and there it goes.

What makes a bomber necessarily be the best??

The effectiveness of the missions? The amount manufactured or produced versions? The operational history or length of service?

Is a ward question to reply.

For example, is a absurd compare the Ju87 and the B29...

 

[buffnut453]

I never generalize.

Generally, neither do I!

 

[Juha]

Hello Kurfürst
Quote:" the defensive armament was also very advanced with lots of firepower."

The armament of late He 177A-3 and -5 was powerful but very advanced? The remote controlled dorsal turret (twin MG 131) at the B-1 position was advanced but at the B-2 position there was a single MG 131 in DL 131/1 C turret, which was according to Price less advanced than the British dorsal turrets. Other positions were equipped with hand held weapons only, the tail and lower nose positions had powerful 20mm single MG 151 each but both positions had limited views and fields of fires. The upper nose position had excellent view and reasonable field of fire but only a single 7,92mm MG 81. The rear gondola C-position had a MG 131 but only two small windows to look out. IMHO He 177 had lots of defensive firepower but generally not very advanced gun positions.

Juha

 

[Vincenzo]

Yes - and with one B-17 (Boeing 299) and one B-29 crash during their development, both programs were almost cancelled. I believe in the first 40 or so built (7 or 8 prototypes and the rest pre production ships) 7 aircraft crashed, beginning the bad reputation the -177 attained.

afaik 6 prototypes of 177 crashed, and an other 8 planes of 0 series were loss (2 to enemy action, the 0 series were send to school and after upgrade to combat unit) but how many time need for so heavy loss?
P-80 program had heavy lossi in the prototypes, P-47 had very heavy loss in first production block

 

[Vincenzo]

Hello Kurfürst
Quote:" the defensive armament was also very advanced with lots of firepower."

The armament of late He 177A-3 and -5 was powerful but very advanced? The remote controlled dorsal turret (twin MG 131) at the B-1 position was advanced but at the B-2 position there was a single MG 131 in DL 131/1 C turret, which was according to Price less advanced than the British dorsal turrets. Other positions were equipped with hand held weapons only, the tail and lower nose positions had powerful 20mm single MG 151 each but both positions had limited views and fields of fires. The upper nose position had excellent view and reasonable field of fire but only a single 7,92mm MG 81. The rear gondola C-position had a MG 131 but only two small windows to look out. IMHO He 177 had lots of defensive firepower but generally not very advanced gun positions.

Juha

probably was compared at other LW bombers, and you actually think that the 3 turrets of lancaster give a best protection?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

P-80 program had heavy lossi in the prototypes, P-47 had very heavy loss in first production block

They were fighters committed for production and those losses IMO were considered acceptable. Its when you crash a large and "expensive" bomber with several people on board that gets the attention of the politicians spending the money on these programs.

 

[Juha]

Hello Vincenzo
Quote:"and you actually think that the 3 turrets of lancaster give a best protection? "

a best? Probably not because vast majority of Lancs had only rifle calibre mgs. But the rear turret was good for a night bomber, with clear vision panel the gunner probably had better chances to see a attacker than the gunners of He 177. And that was the critical point. But of course in He 177 one had 2 gunners, even if both had rather restricted views, to scan the most dangerous sector, low rear, which was a plus. On the other hand those few Lacs with Village-Inn rear turret were clearly superior.

On daytime IMHO the situation was other way around, only those few Lancs with FN82 or Rose rear turret had reasonable effective rear defences, both had rather weak front defences because IMO the lower nose 20mm in He 177 was intended more as an offensive, for strafing merchant ships, than defensive weapon because the gunner's view was so restricted. But anyway, neither He 177 or Lanc didn't have much chance against enemy fighters if unescorted in daytime in MTO or ETO.

Juha

 

[FLYBOYJ]

He 177s did well in the eastern front against soviet fighters primarily because the soviets didn't have tactics on how to attack a large bomber.

 

[Vincenzo]

Hello Vincenzo
Quote:"and you actually think that the 3 turrets of lancaster give a best protection? "

a best? Probably not because vast majority of Lancs had only rifle calibre mgs. But the rear turret was good for a night bomber, with clear vision panel the gunner probably had better chances to see a attacker than the gunners of He 177. And that was the critical point. But of course in He 177 one had 2 gunners, even if both had rather restricted views, to scan the most dangerous sector, low rear, which was a plus. On the other hand those few Lacs with Village-Inn rear turret were clearly superior.

On daytime IMHO the situation was other way around, only those few Lancs with FN82 or Rose rear turret had reasonable effective rear defences, both had rather weak front defences because IMO the lower nose 20mm in He 177 was intended more as an offensive, for strafing merchant ships, than defensive weapon because the gunner's view was so restricted. But anyway, neither He 177 or Lanc didn't have much chance against enemy fighters if unescorted in daytime in MTO or ETO.

Juha

I'm agree the weaponry of 177 was not enough, but as you told the lancaster not has a best.


So in what the Lancaster was superiour, not in defence, not speed, not in load, not in range?

 

[Juha]

Hello Vincenzo
first of all Lanc was more reliable, even in early 44 during Oper Steinbock He 177 was not very reliable, for whatever reason.

On bomb load, have you any info on loads carried in operations by He 177s. According to Price's He 177 Profile, during attacks on London in Spring 44 the more experienced crews flew 177s loaded with 2x1800kg+2x1000kg bombs, ie with 5600kg bomb load; the remainder flew with 4x1000kg bomb load. On the other hand on 3/4 May 44 during the attack on Mailly-le-Camp in France, some 80mls E of Paris, Lancs carried 5219 or 5446kg loads, depending on the distance of their bases to the target, so the difference wasn't big, average load of Lanc might well have been bigger.

And as I wrote, it is difficult to say which had better armament as night bomber, IMHO probably Lanc, mainly because of the better view for the rear gunner, but neither had much chance if picked up by a night fighter, or during day by a fighter.

Juha

 

[syscom3]

I suspect that at nighttime, whomever had the best rearward view had the upperhand.

Maybe Erich can tell us.

 

[Kurfürst]

On bomb load, have you any info on loads carried in operations by He 177s.

Juha

Maximum bombload of the Lancester was about 5,6 tons, maximum bombload of the He 177 was 7,2 tons. End of story...

7 tons could be certainly carried internally, though it may have been possible that it could carry 7,2 tons, internally too (4 x 1800 kg, two SC 1800 certainly fitted in the bomb bay, but I am not 100% sure if four did, and it may have been an external 2x1800 on wings + 2x1800 kg in bomb bay set up).

I agree the Lanc had probably better armament for night missions (i.e. wider firing angles of the turrets, and generally high volume of small caliber fire was probably more effective at close ranges). OTOH during the night missions are somewhat moot point as most bombers shot down never get the chance of firing their guns, and the Lanc had a huge blind gap in the firing fields from attacks from beneath, which the Germans fully exploited (Schraege Musik et all).

During daylight missions, apart from heavier guns and better defensive angles, its worth noting that the chief gun positions on the He 177 were armored (hence the relatively small windows needed for armored glass), as was the practice on German bombers, while the Lancester positions to my best knowledge were not at all and the gunners could be taken out easily.

 

[Vincenzo]

Hello Vincenzo
first of all Lanc was more reliable, even in early 44 during Oper Steinbock He 177 was not very reliable, for whatever reason.

On bomb load, have you any info on loads carried in operations by He 177s. According to Price's He 177 Profile, during attacks on London in Spring 44 the more experienced crews flew 177s loaded with 2x1800kg+2x1000kg bombs, ie with 5600kg bomb load; the remainder flew with 4x1000kg bomb load. On the other hand on 3/4 May 44 during the attack on Mailly-le-Camp in France, some 80mls E of Paris, Lancs carried 5219 or 5446kg loads, depending on the distance of their bases to the target, so the difference wasn't big, average load of Lanc might well have been bigger.

And as I wrote, it is difficult to say which had better armament as night bomber, IMHO probably Lanc, mainly because of the better view for the rear gunner, but neither had much chance if picked up by a night fighter, or during day by a fighter.

Juha

i'm not 100% sure but i think the explanation on not reliability in Steinbock was already writed in this forum.

The choice of load for a mission it's a different thing of possible load, the possible load of 177 it's a bit larger of that lancaster (7000 kg vs 14000 pds).

better view but as you tell the 177 has two position for rear. back on 177 defence i think that weak spot it's not frontal (there is only a short window where enemy planes was attacked only from mg 81, if they are at same height or down can be attacked from nose gun and they came from down also from gondola, if they are enough height can be attacked to dorsal turrets) but flank from down.

Cruising at highest speed give more difficult the interception

 

[Kurfürst]

BTW does anyone have a performance chart of the Lanc? Max speed at altitude, curising speeds and such, max. ceiling when loaded etc?

 

[Juha]

Hello Kurfürst
now have you info that 177s really carried that 7tons load on short range missions regularly? That's my point.

London was a rather short range target, on longer range targets, for ex while bombing railway targets around Velikiye Luki from East Prussia, 177s carried only one ton (4xSC250s) while Lancs could carry 5tons Tallboys a little over twice more distance targets.

BTW by the time 177 began operate, many tail turrets of Lancs were armoured.

Juha

LATER ADDITION: and standard load of Lanc in early 44 in attacks on Berlin, again clearly more distant target than that of 177s when raiding Velikiye Luki, was 8000lb (1x4000lb + 8x500lb), in fact that might be an understatement because the average bomb load for 103Sqn/1 Group Lancs during the six attacks on Berlin in early 44 was 9317lb and for 57Sqn/5 Group 8986lb.

 

[Kurfürst]

Hello Kurfürst
now have you info that 177s really carried that 7tons load on short range missions regularly? That's my point.

I consider your point irrevelant - the He 177 could carry higher bombloads to either short range and long range missions than the Lancaster.

BTW by the time 177 began operate, many tail turrets of Lancs were armoured.

Interesting. Details and sources perhaps?

 

[Glider]

I consider your point irrevelant - the He 177 could carry higher bombloads to either short range and long range missions than the Lancaster.

A couple of questions
A) You can of course support that statement?
B) Why is the point irrelevant?

 

[Juha]

Hello Kurfürst
Quote:"I consider your point irrevelant - the He 177 could carry higher bombloads to either short range and long range missions than the Lancaster."

IMHO it's just opposite, in war and in fact in real life generally ,what matters is what can be done not what might be theoritically possible. Odd that 177 seems to have carried well under its theoretical max bomb loads in every case I have info on the exact loading. Difficult to understand why in early summer 44 Germans sent 87 He 177s to bomb Velikiye Luki with 4 SC250 per plane. If they could have carried say 12 SC 250s each it would have been much more fuel economical to sent only 30 He 177s with that load, same tonnege with much less fuel consumed or the all 87 with that load and much more tonnage dropped. Difficult to see the logic of German actions if 177 really could easily carry loads advertaised.

On turret armour, look for ex R. Wallace Clarke's British Aircraft Armament Vol. 1

Juha