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

[buffnut453]

Lancaster operating over France were not challenged by FLAK in anywhere near the way USAAF bombers were challenged while opperating over Germany. Nor were they challenged by Luftwaffe fighters in significant numbers.

Have you read the list of targets provided by Mike Williams? It includes Hamburg, Essen, Cologne, Gelsenkirchen, Dortmund, Oberhausen, Bonn, Wilhelmshaven and a number of others which aren't in France...they're in GERMANY. Why do you feel the need to constantly diminish the role of the RAF heavy bomber force?

 

[buffnut453]

The Lancaster I/III simply could not have conducted daylight raids over Germany.

The evidence clearly shoes that the Lancaster I/III did conduct daylight raids over Germany...unless you're suggesting that the list is wrong, made up, or fake?

 

[Glider]

H2S replaced a belly turret on Lancaster as it did on Liberator and Fortress.

I think your missing the point. All RAF Main force bombers carried H2S generally only Bomber Leaders in the USAAF carried it. You can to a degree prove this yourself when looking at photo's of the B17/B24. How many do you see without a ball turret?
It is also true that all UK based B24's lost their ball turret and one waist gunner to lose weight and improve handling.

B17/B24 carried carpet jammers and dropped huge amounts of window to degrade FLAK radar. Windows was the main load of Electronic Warfare equipment.

This I agree with and my understanding is that only 1 or 2 aircraft per squadron carried the carpet jammer and it was an extra crew member, the majority used window.

Im saying USAAF bombers carried considerable electronic navigation equipment.

I would agree that leader's did but generally they didn't. The USAAF had navigation leaders and bomber leaders who clearly needed the extra equipment, the extra personal to use it and the compensating loss of weapons and or payload to compensate. To a much larger degree the RAF had it all as a standard fit without compensation to payload or weapons.

How would a Lancaster flying at 240mph max cruise at 21000ft, a perfect height for the 190, deter a 416mph Fw 190A6 attacking from the side and below?

Probably no better or worse than a B17 or B24.
Again this is something you can check yourself looking at the gun camera film available online. How many times do you find one taken from the side, above or below. In fact remembering that the B17 cruised at a lower speed than the Lancaster the B17 was as at much risk if not more than the Lancaster being an easier target and spending more time over enemy territory.

 

[Glider]

Lancaster operating over France were not challenged by FLAK in anywhere near the way USAAF bombers were challenged while opperating over Germany. Nor were they challenged by Luftwaffe fighters in significant numbers.

Can I strongly suggest that you spend a bit more time doing research before making such obviously incorrect statements.

1) Are you seriously suggesting that the RAF didn't suffer at the hands of the German nightfighter force?
2) In daylight are you seriously suggesting that the Germans treated the RAF with less degree of seriousness remembering of course that carried a much heavier bombload (approx 50% more) and were more accurate on the many days where cloud cover was around.
3) Re the German Flak. There is a reason why it was in place before the USAAF started bombing targets in Germany. It was there because the RAF pressure forced it to be deployed.

 

[nuuumannn]

1 Only Pathfinder carried H2S.

Not true, as you have been advised, but the Pathfinder units in No.8 Group were the first to receive H2S sets, notably No.35 Sqn equipped with the Halifax, as well as No.7 Sqn equipped with the Short Stirling.

 

[nuuumannn]

How would a Lancaster flying at 240mph max cruise at 21000ft, a perfect height for the 190, deter a 416mph Fw 190A6 attacking from the side and below?

What a stupid question! How is it possible that the finest Luftwaffe fighters could not have shot down every Lancaster that flew over German territory?!

You can do better than this, Koopernic.

 

[Peter Gunn]

There is a world of difference between the escorts B17's had in 1942/43/early 1944 to the escorts Lancasters had over France (not Germany) while being escorted by thousands of land based fighters based in France and able to attack German airfields in France and Germany. It's not the same thing.

A Fw 190 operating at 20,000ft was in its element of speed and manoeuvrability. It can use attack angles with ease to get at blind spots and weaknesses. At 25,000ft and above it has drastically fallen of in performance.

*SNIP*

I'm pretty sure that altitude band was right in the Mustang's wheelhouse, are British Mustangs handicapped somehow? Could not the 8th or 9th AF reciprocate the favors of the RAF early war where Spits were sent to escort B-17's?

 

[Koopernic]

Have you read the list of targets provided by Mike Williams? It includes Hamburg, Essen, Cologne, Gelsenkirchen, Dortmund, Oberhausen, Bonn, Wilhelmshaven and a number of others which aren't in France...they're in GERMANY. Why do you feel the need to constantly diminish the role of the RAF heavy bomber force?

These raids do not in any way prove the suitability or survivability of the Lancaster for the kind of daylight raids the USAAF conducted between 1942 to 1945.
1 These targets are within the escort radius of even the Spitfire IX from Southern England. IE 300 miles.
2 These are conducted 4 months After the June 6 invasion of France after the RAF has bases on the continent.
3 These raids are conducted when the Luftwaffe is weak and on the ropes. The Lancaster is simply not being challenged by the Luftwaffe.
4 Bombing poor old Cologne was by then hardly worth it but clearly targets beyond the Ruhr deeper into Germany were a bit too dangerous.
to try.
5 If they tried Lancasters in 1943 they'd get shredded. FLAK attrition probably 3 times greater, maybe 4. Operating at 20,000ft is also perfect for the German fighters.

 

[buffnut453]

These raids do not in any way prove the suitability or survivability of the Lancaster for the kind of daylight raids the USAAF conducted between 1942 to 1945.

The RAF wasn't flying "the kind of daylight raids the USAAF conducted." Bomber Command had an entirely different approach, simply because there wasn't time to retrain night bomber crews to fly in the large box formations as employed by the USAAF. The tactics were entirely different and hence the delivered different results.

1 These targets are within the escort radius of even the Spitfire IX from Southern England. IE 300 miles.
2 These are conducted 4 months After the June 6 invasion of France after the RAF has bases on the continent.

While many of these targets are located in western Germany, Hamburg is rather further inland...so let's not oversimplify the arguments by ignoring facts that don't support your position. I also don't understand the point of these 2 comments. The title of this thread is "Lancaster as an ESCORTED daylight bomber." The type of escort fighter is not specified so it could just as easily be USAAF P-47s and P-51s, just as Spitfires provided escort for portions of a great many USAAF bombing raids.

3 These raids are conducted when the Luftwaffe is weak and on the ropes.

It was also the timeframe when flak defences were getting more dense and effective. Even 8th AF records highlight the increase in casualties to flak as the German front line collapsed towards Germany proper. And yet you state that the Lancaster was clearly flak bait.

The Lancaster is simply not being challenged by the Luftwaffe.

Do you have a source for that assertion? Clearly the USAAF bomber formations were still being engaged by both fighters and flak during this time period...and yet the RAF isn't? I'd really like you to provide some statistics backing up this assertion.

4 Bombing poor old Cologne was by then hardly worth it but clearly targets beyond the Ruhr deeper into Germany were a bit too dangerous to try.

That's a pretty big assumption you're making. At the end of the day, the bombers were tasked against targets that were deemed the most important given that stage of the war, which is precisely why so many bombers, USAAF and RAF, were used in CAS-like missions to destroy German frontline ground forces as the Allies advanced through Europe. Again, you're painting a very negative view of the RAF. I think you need to climb off your nationalistic hobbyhorse.

5 If they tried Lancasters in 1943 they'd get shredded. FLAK attrition probably 3 times greater, maybe 4. Operating at 20,000ft is also perfect for the German fighters.

With due respect, the USAAF B-17s and B-24s got shredded in 1943, which is why, from May 1943 onwards, the USAAF decided that heavy bomber raids into Germany required fighter escort. The USAAF never succeeded in unescorted daylight raids...at least, not until very late in the war. Again, this thread is about the Lancaster as an ESCORTED daylight bomber.


One final observation...the Lancaster could carry a heavier bomb load and so required fewer aircraft to carry the same tonnage of bombs than either the B-17 and B-24 (the B-24 was better than the B-17 but the Lancaster surpassed them both).

 

[Koopernic]

I'm pretty sure that altitude band was right in the Mustang's wheelhouse, are British Mustangs handicapped somehow? Could not the 8th or 9th AF reciprocate the favors of the RAF early war where Spits were sent to escort B-17's?

The Fw 190A and Me 109G both fell of in performance rapidly after 20000 Feet. The USAAF by attacking at above 25000ft forced the Luftwaffe to fight where it was at a serious disadvantage wrt P-38, P-47 and P51. At 20,000ft things are nowhere as bad in terms of speed, climb and turning rates.

 

[Koopernic]

The RAF wasn't flying "the kind of daylight raids the USAAF conducted." Bomber Command had an entirely different approach, simply because there wasn't time to retrain night bomber crews to fly in the large box formations as employed by the USAAF. The tactics were entirely different and hence the delivered different results.




While many of these targets are located in western Germany, Hamburg is rather further inland...so let's not oversimplify the arguments by ignoring facts that don't support your position. I also don't understand the point of these 2 comments. The title of this thread is "Lancaster as an ESCORTED daylight bomber." The type of escort fighter is not specified so it could just as easily be USAAF P-47s and P-51s, just as Spitfires provided escort for portions of a great many USAAF bombing raids.




It was also the timeframe when flak defences were getting more dense and effective. Even 8th AF records highlight the increase in casualties to flak as the German front line collapsed towards Germany proper. And yet you state that the Lancaster was clearly flak bait.




Do you have a source for that assertion? Clearly the USAAF bomber formations were still being engaged by both fighters and flak during this time period...and yet the RAF isn't? I'd really like you to provide some statistics backing up this assertion.




That's a pretty big assumption you're making. At the end of the day, the bombers were tasked against targets that were deemed the most important given that stage of the war, which is precisely why so many bombers, USAAF and RAF, were used in CAS-like missions to destroy German frontline ground forces as the Allies advanced through Europe. Again, you're painting a very negative view of the RAF. I think you need to climb off your nationalistic hobbyhorse.




With due respect, the USAAF B-17s and B-24s got shredded in 1943, which is why, from May 1943 onwards, the USAAF decided that heavy bomber raids into Germany required fighter escort. The USAAF never succeeded in unescorted daylight raids...at least, not until very late in the war. Again, this thread is about the Lancaster as an ESCORTED daylight bomber.


One final observation...the Lancaster could carry a heavier bomb load and so required fewer aircraft to carry the same tonnage of bombs than either the B-17 and B-24 (the B-24 was better than the B-17 but the Lancaster surpassed them both).

A Lancaster carried more bomb load only because it had less armament, less armor and , this is a big one, it had less redundancy of systems. Carrying H2X meant the American aircaft lost a ball turret. They still had their waist guns and 050.

The big radials on the B17 slowed it a little due to drag and the turbos added weight but the B17 was still faster if the cruise was at 25,000ft. It would have been relatively easy to fit turbo charged Allisons to increase the B17 performance significantly and even the twin wasps replacing the cyclone would have reduced drag.

 

[Airframes]

The fact that the Lancaster bomb bay was 33 feet long very possibly had something to do with the size of the bomb load, regardless of what weapons and equipment were fitted !

 

[fastmongrel]

Why does the Lancaster have to cruise at 20,000 feet. Most crews tried to get higher and plenty flew at 22/23,000 feet.

If you want better altitude then fit high altitude rated engines don't have to be 60 series if they're not available the Merlin 47 (RM6S) fitted to the high altitude Spitfire mk VI might work.

 

[buffnut453]

A Lancaster carried more bomb load only because it had less armament, less armor and , this is a big one, it had less redundancy of systems. Carrying H2X meant the American aircaft lost a ball turret. They still had their waist guns and 050.

Yes, you're absolutely right. The ability of the Lancaster to carry a typical bomb load of 14,000lb for a range in excess of 2,000 miles is largely due to it having fewer redundant systems.

Oh...and the extra armour which was needed to protect the extra crew which were needed to fire the extra guns...at least 4 of which (depending on the variant) were pintle-mounted and of more use to crew morale than they were a threat to the enemy fighters.

By comparison, the B-24 is carrying a max of 8,000lb over 1,500 miles or the B-17 carrying 6,000lb over 2,000 miles are clearly the better weapons.

The big radials on the B17 slowed it a little due to drag and the turbos added weight but the B17 was still faster if the cruise was at 25,000ft. It would have been relatively easy to fit turbo charged Allisons to increase the B17 performance significantly and even the twin wasps replacing the cyclone would have reduced drag.

Relatively easy to fit Allisons to the B-17? I'm not going to touch that nonsense.

 

[Milosh]

Relatively easy to fit Allisons to the B-17? I'm not going to touch that nonsense.

Actually Allisons were fitted to the B-17, the XB-38.
Boeing XB-38 Flying Fortress - Wikipedia

 

[Shortround6]

Not too far fetched but the performance difference is subject to interpretation.
Test aircraft had one .30 cal gun in the nose. It may have been operating several thousand pounds lighter than a B-17G.

While the peak power may have been higher on the Allison the max continuous power may have been the same?
1000hp for both engines?

 

[GrauGeist]

The V-1710 was also proposed for the B-24.

 

[SaparotRob]

The V-1710 was also proposed for the B-24.

View attachment 604317

Cool.

 

[Glider]

A couple of obvious responses to your comments

These raids do not in any way prove the suitability or survivability of the Lancaster for the kind of daylight raids the USAAF conducted between 1942 to 1945.
1 These targets are within the escort radius of even the Spitfire IX from Southern England. IE 300 miles.

A number of these were, of that there is no doubt but its also fair to point out that the USAAF bombers also could have had the same advantage. Also there was at least one daylight raid in 1944 to the Rhur escorted by Tempests, that suffered zero losses. The RAF didn't repeat it due to the emphasis on night raid, and its clear that one raid should not be given too much relevance. But it was a daylight raid, to a very heavily defended German target which had very large numbers of AA defences, before D Day and it had no losses. Had the RAF wanted to then no doubt it could have continued with further raids

2 These are conducted 4 months After the June 6 invasion of France after the RAF has bases on the continent.

Correct and again the USAAF had the same advantages

3 These raids are conducted when the Luftwaffe is weak and on the ropes. The Lancaster is simply not being challenged by the Luftwaffe.

Again the comment re the USAAF applies. I don't think you gave an answer to my earlier question. So are you implying that the Luftwaffe decided not to attack the Lancaster's but tried everything they could to stop the USAAF.

4 Bombing poor old Cologne was by then hardly worth it but clearly targets beyond the Ruhr deeper into Germany were a bit too dangerous.
to try.

If you can hit the targets hard by night, why attack them by day?

5 If they tried Lancasters in 1943 they'd get shredded. FLAK attrition probably 3 times greater, maybe 4. Operating at 20,000ft is also perfect for the German fighters.

A couple of points here.
a) Are you saying the USAAF didn't receive unsustainable loses in 1943? Before you reply its worth remembering that deep penetration unescorted raids were effectively stopped in 1943 until the long range fighters became available.
b) Re the accuracy of the Flak defences. You can of course support that statement, remembering of course that at the higher cruise speed the Lancaster would have been in range of the AA guns for a shorter period of time. I and no doubt others would appreciate this evidence. Also remember the example of the Rhur raid in May 1944, loads of the most modern AA guns and no, repeat no losses. No doubt they were lucky to a degree, but it does nothing to support your belief that the FLAK attrition would be three to four times the losses suffered by the USAAF.

 

[buffnut453]

Actually Allisons were fitted to the B-17, the XB-38.
Boeing XB-38 Flying Fortress - Wikipedia

Hi Milosh,

Yes, the XB-38 flew with Allisons but if it was "relatively easy" then it would have been implemented operationally. As it was, the juice doesn't seem to have been worth the squeeze. Yes, it had a higher speed but its operating altitude was lower and the engines were needed for other aircraft, notably the P-38s that were desperately needed as escorts (at least they were in 1943).

Any technical challenge can be overcome given enough time, money and resources. However, it still think it's rather glib for anyone to suggest that getting an operational Allison-powered B-17 was an easy thing to achieve.