Lancaster as an escorted, daylight bomber ala B-17/24?

[JDCAVE]

What question do you want me to answer?

I want a historical document that says, something to the effect that vapour trails had anything to do with the heights Lancasters operated. Weather conditions, icing conditions and so on. Sure they entered into the planning and operational heights. The aircraft's capabilities at altitude. Sure that's a factor. But also remember the higher route to the target, the sooner radar can pick you up.

At the end of the day, Lancasters operated at the heights they operated and they were effective at those heights. And they were effective at those heights during the day with fighter escorts. And B-17's were effective at the heights they operated. Both aircraft types were easily spotted during the day if they produced vapour trails. But I have never, ever, seen any wartime documents that give any indication of heights being chosen or rejected based on the expectation of vapour trails at said height. Meteorological forecasts factored prominently but I've seen no mention of vapour trails. I think icing conditions figured more prominently than vapour trails, and at least in the case of bomber command likely were a bigger cause of catastrophic failures than vapour trails. But what do I know. I wasn't there. Dad was and he talked about icing conditions a lot in his audio memoirs.

edit: I just want to add one last point. Bomber Command put their scientists to work looking into optimal loading of the aircraft, fuel and bombs at range. And they did so with analysis of losses and trying to correlate those with whether the aircraft had sufficient fuel to return to base. Evidently some stations were erring on the side of caution pertaining to fuel, and skimping on bomb loads, whilst other were loading up on bombs and leaving fate in the hands of the crew. Did the aircraft have sufficient fuel if the tanks were holed by fighters etc. The analysis was quite detailed.

Jim

 

[PAT303]

I've read that about sea battles as well, that the target crew on occasion could see the shells coming at them.

Same as navy battles, I've read of radar operators tracking incoming15" 16'' enemy shells, that would have been scary.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Haven't you heard? The .303 could barely scrape the paint off an enemy aircraft. Conversely, the 50cal could bring down entire formations with a single bullet.

Only when fired by a Mustang.

 

[Peter Gunn]

In WW1 when many planes were used as observers and artillery was frequently howitzers lobbing high at (comparatively) short range pilots and observers would see the shells almost come to a halt around them then continue on their parabola downwards.

I remember reading years ago about an RAF pilot flying a Spitfire over the beach on D-Day, now I can't remember what he was doing i.e. I don't think he was spotting for the naval gunfire but perhaps he was? At any rate, he was looking at a British BB (can't remember which one) that had just fired a salvo at a target inland. Apparently he was not only in line with the projectiles but was flying at the apex of their trajectory and the passage of the shells knocked him around quite a bit and claimed he was lucky he wasn't hit by a 15" round.

He did say he saw the shells after they passed and he watched them all the way to the target and explode.

Battleship caliber shells are relatively easy to see in flight, there's many a photo of them cracking off a salvo and you can see the projectiles in the same picture. At Guadalcanal they were very easy to see at night, I've read where the U.S.S. Helena with her fifteen 6" rifles was a veritable firehose of lead. Here's the Missouri firing a six gun salvo (on a shakedown cruise I believe), shells in the upper right.

 

[buffnut453]

Only when fired by a Mustang.

Oh no, you're wrong there. As we've seen on this thread, the mighty 50 cal used in heavy bombers forced German fighters to engage at longer stand-off distances, and made heavily armoured American bombers invulnerable to enemy fire, while the flimsy Lancaster fell out of the sky if a German fighter pilot as much as looked at it the wrong way.

 

[PAT303]

Oh no, you're wrong there. As we've seen on this thread, the mighty 50 cal used in heavy bombers forced German fighters to engage at longer stand-off distances, and made heavily armoured American bombers invulnerable to enemy fire, while the flimsy Lancaster fell out of the sky if a German fighter pilot as much as looked at it the wrong way.

And they knocked out Tigers by bouncing those big fifty cal powerhouses off the cobble stone roads into their bellies, those Sherman guys with their pip-squeak 75mm's were green with envy

 

[Koopernic]

Take a look at the placement of the armour...see any gaps or chinks in the armour where bullets might get through?

View attachment 618972

Enjoy the comfort blanket, 'cos that's all the "heavy armor" in a B-17 provided.

That looks like a B17F, not the more heavily armoured B17G. Besides steal armor the American bombers had a large amount of paper mache and armour glass. The paper mache absored splinters form FLAK and 20mm hits.

In addition B17s were modified by the USAAF with additional amour behind the instrument panel to help the pilots survive a head on attack, additional armor for the navigator and armour for the bomb aimer. This was all in the light of operational experience.

There is a list of these here:
B-17 Queen of the Sky - B-17G page

 

[Koopernic]

Same as navy battles, I've read of radar operators tracking incoming15" 16'' enemy shells, that would have been scary.

Seeing FLAK shells or large naval shells leaving or comming in was not unusual. Radars of the day stared in one direction rather than scanned. The type 285 radar operators on PoW during the battle of Denmark Straights (with Bismarck) could see the 14" inch shells on their scopes leave.

I remember reading years ago about an RAF pilot flying a Spitfire over the beach on D-Day, now I can't remember what he was doing i.e. I don't think he was spotting for the naval gunfire but perhaps he was? At any rate, he was looking at a British BB (can't remember which one) that had just fired a salvo at a target inland. Apparently he was not only in line with the projectiles but was flying at the apex of their trajectory and the passage of the shells knocked him around quite a bit and claimed he was lucky he wasn't hit by a 15" round.

He did say he saw the shells after they passed and he watched them all the way to the target and explode.

Battleship caliber shells are relatively easy to see in flight, there's many a photo of them cracking off a salvo and you can see the projectiles in the same picture. At Guadalcanal they were very easy to see at night, I've read where the U.S.S. Helena with her fifteen 6" rifles was a veritable firehose of lead. Here's the Missouri firing a six gun salvo (on a shakedown cruise I believe), shells in the upper right.

View attachment 619047

The USAAF determined during the Vietnam war that 5% of its combat pilots could see AAA shells coming up. I'd say that statistic held during WW2.

Incidentally a good SLR camera with a 1/2000th of a second shutter speed could take this photograph easily.

 

[buffnut453]

Ok...lots of people have commented about various types of large calibre shells being visible while in flight. Anyone ever seen a 50 cal round in flight with the naked eye?

 

[SaparotRob]

Do tracers count?

 

[buffnut453]

Do tracers count?

How do you differentiate .303 tracer from 50 cal tracer?

The comment was made that German pilots, on seeing 50 cal bullets flying, would run away bravely. I still don't see how that would work.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

How do you differentiate .303 tracer from 50 cal tracer?

The comment was made that German pilots, on seeing 50 cal bullets flying, would run away bravely. I still don't see how that would work.

Easy. The .50 cal scares the air out of the way, while the .303 has to plough through it all the same. That's the easiest tell I know of.

 

[Koopernic]

Ok...lots of people have commented about various types of large calibre shells being visible while in flight. Anyone ever seen a 50 cal round in flight with the naked eye?

Interesting discussion here:
Why can't humans see bullets after their fired? Obviously, I know it's because bullets are to fast, but what is the scientific explanation? - Quora

 

[Milosh]

I remember reading years ago about an RAF pilot flying a Spitfire over the beach on D-Day, now I can't remember what he was doing i.e. I don't think he was spotting for the naval gunfire but perhaps he was? At any rate, he was looking at a British BB (can't remember which one) that had just fired a salvo at a target inland. Apparently he was not only in line with the projectiles but was flying at the apex of their trajectory and the passage of the shells knocked him around quite a bit and claimed he was lucky he wasn't hit by a 15" round.

USS Arkansas, USS Texas, USS Nevada, HMS Warspite, HMS Ramillies and HMS Rodney

 

[33k in the air]

But I have never, ever, seen any wartime documents that give any indication of heights being chosen or rejected based on the expectation of vapour trails at said height.

The following excerpt from Target Berlin by Jeffrey Ethell and Alfred Price may be of interest (p.29-30):

The weather forecasters expected aircraft above 23,000 feet to leave condensation trails; these would make it more difficult for bombers to hold formation and easier for German fighters to find them. To avoid this nuisance bomber formation leaders were ordered to stay below 21,000 feet.

 

[Koopernic]

The following excerpt from Target Berlin by Jeffrey Ethell and Alfred Price may be of interest (p.29-30):

The weather forecasters expected aircraft above 23,000 feet to leave condensation trails; these would make it more difficult for bombers to hold formation and easier for German fighters to find them. To avoid this nuisance bomber formation leaders were ordered to stay below 21,000 feet.

When was this raid conducted?

 

[33k in the air]

When was this raid conducted?

March 6, 1944 — the first full USAAF daylight raid on Berlin. Mission takeoff commenced at 7:45 am; leading units of the attack formation crossed the Dutch coast at 10:52 am, eight minutes behind schedule due to stronger than forecast headwinds over the North Sea.

 

[MIflyer]

The Lanc was used as a daylight escorted bomber for raids supporting the Normandy Invasion in June 1944. Oddly enough, when they got past the range Spitfires could handle they were escorted by Mosquitoes.

 

[Milosh]

March 6, 1944 — the first full USAAF daylight raid on Berlin. Mission takeoff commenced at 7:45 am; leading units of the attack formation crossed the Dutch coast at 10:52 am, eight minutes behind schedule due to stronger than forecast headwinds over the North Sea.

Bombing Altitudes: 20,800 ft; 22,000 ft by the 303BG(H)
118.pdf (303rdbg.com)

 

[Koopernic]

Bombing Altitudes: 20,800 ft; 22,000 ft by the 303BG(H)
118.pdf (303rdbg.com)

"We put up 812 heavy bombers (504 B-17s and 226 B-24s) and 474 B-17s and 198 B-24s made it to their targets, but the bombing results were not too good. Photo's indicate that no bombs hit their assigned targets. And the losses were staggering – at least 80 aircraft (53 B-17s, 16 B-24s and 11 fighters), a new 8th Air Force record for any one mission–even greater than Schweinfurt. This may have been due to the fact that we were at a much lower altitude than our usual bombing. But it was necessary as the trip in and out took almost nine hours. Three B-17s and five B-24s were lost to AA fire, 41 B-17s due to enemy aircraft and 4 B-17s and 2 B-24s due to both AA fire and enemy aircraft"

A fairly brutal mission. It confirms the nuisance contrails were but also confirms how much the 8th airforce preferred flying at altitude and only came down when necessary.