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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Koopernic said:
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.
Click to expand...

The March 6, 1944, raid on Berlin was the single worst day for heavy bomber losses for the 8th Air Force in the ETO. A total of 69 heavies were lost to enemy action. In addition, one bomber crashed on takeoff and three more which returned were written off. The 100th Bomb Group fared the worst on the day: it put up 35 bombers for the mission, of which 32 penetrated enemy airspace; 16 were shot down.

9 of the 100th's aircraft were lost in a single incident, when their formation found itself the victim of a well-placed head-on attack by German fighters.
 
Would the survivability of the Lancaster improve as a day bomber. At night only an average of one in seven crew would survive.
being shot down.

What was the survivability of the B17 and B24?
 
gruad said:
Would the survivability of the Lancaster improve as a day bomber. At night only an average of one in seven crew would survive.
being shot down.

What was the survivability of the B17 and B24?
Click to expand...
Where does that figure come from?
 
gruad said:
Only 25% of airmen safely exited Halifaxes and Stirlings, a mere 15% from Lancasters. From Imperial war museum link below

Life And Death In Bomber Command
Click to expand...
For various reasons I would challenge that interpretation of statistics. edited G gruad

1 They weren't flying the same missions, The Lancasters first mission was the longest low level daylight raid of the war, if you get hit at low level you dont bale out.
2 The Lancaster was the weapon of choice of 617 squadron, raids on the dams and canals were also at low level and many others involved crossing the coast at low level, you dont survive incidents at that level.
3 As the war progressed raids became longer range, the Stirling and the Halifax were progressively removed from the longest raids, so Lancaster crews were the ones who had furthest to fly back with flack or nightfighter damage.
4 Hitler issued a directive that "terror fleigers" should be killed on sight by the civilian population, this applied mainly in Germany itself and at that time in the war most were Lancaster crew. Statistics only record the crew that baled out and then survived the war, some were executed in between.
5 Harris worked by different metrics. If dropping ten tons of bombs on Berlin requires 1 Lancaster 2 Halifaxes or 5 Stirlings for the same effect you will lose 2 times as many Hallifax crew members and 5 times as many Stirling crew. (these aren't literally exact ratios, just an illustration of a principle).
6 When on the same mission Stirlings and Halifaxes were more likely to be shot down anyway.
 
Last edited:
gruad said:
Would the survivability of the Lancaster improve as a day bomber. At night only an average of one in seven crew would survive.
being shot down.
Click to expand...

Survivability by crew position:

Lancaster

09.6% = pilot
13.8% = navigator
11.9% = wireless operator
12.4% = flight engineer
13.2% = bomb-aimer
08.5% = mid-upper gunner
08.0% = rear gunner

10.9% = overall

Halifax

20.8% = pilot
36.2% = navigator
32.5% = wireless operator
34.0% = flight engineer
31.4% = bomb-aimer
27.3% = mid-upper gunner
23.4% = rear gunner

29.0% = overall

Wellington

14.6% = pilot
21.0% = navigator
18.5% = wireless operator
18.5% = bomb-aimer
14.6% = rear gunner

17.5% = overall

Source:
Bomber Command Headquarters, 'An examination of the emergency escape arrangements from Bomber Command operational aircraft,' 19 May 1945, DHist 181.003 (D4598)
 
YIKES!!!

Looks like navigator or bomb aimer was the job to have.
 
Peter Gunn said:
YIKES!!!

Looks like navigator or bomb aimer was the job to have.
Click to expand...
I think what you have there is the statistical opposite of survivor bias. The statistics are for crews surviving bailing out. If any member of the crew is killed, the pilot can fly the rest home, if the pilot is killed the rest have to jump out if they can.

Prior to the introduction of FIDO to clear fog bound runways the procedure was to point the aircraft out to sea and bail out. Fido started in January 1943. The three emergency landing fields of Carnaby, Manston and Woodbridge, also equipped with FIDO meant that landing, or crash landing as it was previously. Woodbridge opened in Nov 1943 then Carnaby March 1944 and Manston April 1944. While operational 1,400 bombers landed at Carnaby, 4,200 of all types landed at Woodbridge.

There are cases of people jumping with no parachute and surviving, there are cases of crew surviving crash landings at night, there are a few cases of rear gunners surviving after the rear fuselage was cut off, similarly there are cases of crew bailing out over UK without injury and being killed by where they landed. Stats are a biatch.
 
Hello,

There are numerous web sites that show immense damage to B-17's that somehow managed to return to Britain after flying/fighting over Europe. Fuselages sliced open, noses completely gone, midair's with german fighters, huge direct hit flak holes, belly landings.

Are there images of Lancaster's returning with equivalent battle damage? A very imperfect idea to see if the Lancaster could of been an escorted daylight bomber.

Also not having a Co Pilot could possible increase loss rates.



Timmy B
 
Timmy P3B FCO said:
Are there images of Lancaster's returning with equivalent battle damage? A very imperfect idea to see if the Lancaster could of been an escorted daylight bomber.

Also not having a Co Pilot could possible increase loss rates.
Click to expand...
There are images but not so many, I don't know whether that means they didn't return with damage (actually they certainly did) taking photos was generally frowned upon.

Not having a co pilot on daylight raids probably would increase losses, if forming into a box formation was needed, simply because the raids were so much longer.
 

How about these?



























Is that enough?
 

Attachments

  • 1618611466475.png
    14.3 KB · Views: 39
  • 1618611564050.png
    15.4 KB · Views: 35
 
I've often read photography was a lot more strict on British stations. Succinct bit from the into to the great photo book Lancaster at War (Mike Garbett and Brian Goulding):

Because the British were so notoriously anti-camera during the war -- perhaps understandably so in the earlier years -- there are large gaps in our history. How we envy the historian writing of the Lancaster's American counterparts, the B17 Fortress and B24 Liberator, with a vast, seemingly inexhaustible supply of superb action photographs from which to choose, almost every aircraft in their daylight formations having one or more cameras aboard. We cannot match their formation pictures, their battle scenes, aircraft being hit by flak, crews baling out, combats, contrails, etc. It must also be remembered that the Lancaster operated mainly by night until the last year of the war, giving much less opportunity for photography.​
 
In places like Bletchley park even keeping a diary was an offence under the OSA. Damaged bombers generally returned at night, in the dark, the pilot parked them up away from the main airfield and the crew were taken away to be de briefed and sleep, generally they didn't see the plane again, they got in another one for the next mission.
 

Very tough airframe after looking at pictures and havent seen most of those before

still of opinion that having no Co Pilot increased loses
 
Timmy P3B FCO said:
Very tough airframe after looking at pictures and havent seen most of those before

still of opinion that having no Co Pilot increased loses
Click to expand...
On most (as in more than 50%) of RAF missions that involved a loss the pilot played no part so two pilots would also play no part. On long missions it is necessary for someone to take over the controls for a while and many RAF crews did that but generally having two pilots would just mean losing more pilots in most cases, on daylight raids the job was to maintain formation, how do two do it better than one?
 

What is noteworthy is the significant difference between the model of aircraft. The Halifax was close to three times more survivable than the Lancaster if forced to bail out.
 
Lancasters had a jump seat where one of the crew could take over if required. With 2 pilots, one pilot flew the a/c while the other would work controls like the throttles and be an extra set of eyes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
How did B-17 and B-24 formations avoid shooting each other?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
5K
Peter Gunn
"Zerstörer" specification, but as an 1-engined fighter
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
4K
marathag
XB-24J prototype bomber
Replies
18
Views
1K
GrauGeist
N
How does Ural bombers(Ju-89/Do-19) compared to stuff luke B-17 or Lancaster?
Replies
1
Views
904
GregP
Y
Help Identifying Great Uncle's B-17
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
CATCH 22
Menu
Log in
Register