syscom3
Pacific Historian
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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I never generalize.
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.
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
P-80 program had heavy lossi in the prototypes, P-47 had very heavy loss in first production block
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
On bomb load, have you any info on loads carried in operations by He 177s.
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
Hello Kurfürst
now have you info that 177s really carried that 7tons load on short range missions regularly? That's my point.
BTW by the time 177 began operate, many tail turrets of Lancs were armoured.
A couple of questionsI consider your point irrevelant - the He 177 could carry higher bombloads to either short range and long range missions than the Lancaster.