Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
The Lancaster I/III simply could not have conducted daylight raids over Germany.
H2S replaced a belly turret on Lancaster as it did on Liberator and Fortress.
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.B17/B24 carried carpet jammers and dropped huge amounts of window to degrade FLAK radar. Windows was the main load of Electronic Warfare 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.Im saying USAAF bombers carried considerable electronic navigation equipment.
Probably no better or worse than a B17 or B24.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?
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.
1 Only Pathfinder carried H2S.
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?
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?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*
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.
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 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.
Actually Allisons were fitted to the B-17, the XB-38.Relatively easy to fit Allisons to the B-17? I'm not going to touch that nonsense.
Cool.
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 raidsThese 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.
Correct and again the USAAF had the same advantages2 These are conducted 4 months After the June 6 invasion of France after the RAF has bases on the continent.
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.3 These raids are conducted when the Luftwaffe is weak and on the ropes. The Lancaster is simply not being challenged by the Luftwaffe.
If you can hit the targets hard by night, why attack them by day?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.
A couple of points here.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.
Actually Allisons were fitted to the B-17, the XB-38.
Boeing XB-38 Flying Fortress - Wikipedia