Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
A couple of obvious responses to your comments
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.
I suspect our colleague is merely trolling, as some of his statements are bordering on the ridiculous and are very much unsubstantiated.
Out of general interest, in 1942, the Air Fighting Development Unit at RAF Duxford carried out tactical trials by day and night using a 44 Sqn Lancaster I. Subsequently, a 'flying circus' of three Spitfires visited all the squadrons within No.5 Group Bomber Command to carry out familiarisation flights with the bomber crews. The following is taken from the report, No.47 Tactical Trials - Lancaster Aircraft. Under the heading Fighting Manoeuvres For Formations, there is a description of what action Lancasters should take when formation flying by day.
"28. It has also been found in the majority of recent daylight operations that the German fighters are shy of the power-operated turrets and stand off at 600-400 yards using their cannon. The result is that if any close formation is adopted by the bombers they present a mass target while adding nothing to their mutual fire support, owing to the extreme difficulty of achieving a correct aim at long range with our present sights.""29. It has therefore been necessary to develop a form of evasive action, which will give the bombers a chance to carry out individual evasion while maintaining their track to the target and giving each other assistance. Just before the fighters attack the Lancasters should climb up to 600 feet and numbers 2 and 3 should come well up on the beam of the leader."
"When the fighters close in the leader of the vic should undulate violently between 600 feet and ground level, while Nos. 2 and 3 carry out a modified form of corkscrew on either side of the leader beginning with a diving turn outwards of about 20 degrees and varying their height between 600 and 100 feet. Practise is necessary to ensure that the outside aircraft are never more than 300 to 400 yards from the leader and that they do not mask his guns by sliding in behind him during their inward movement. Nos. 2 and 3 should attempt to keep as close as possible to the leader until an attack actually develops so that during their evasion they will not go too far away from him. This evasive manoeuvre enables the formation to continue upon track while it gives the fighters difficult deflection shooting."
"The fighters found it hard to attack the leader as he was protected by the guns of the outside aircraft, and if they followed an outside aircraft in its corkscrew, they were soon drawn under the leader's guns. A further advantage of this manoeuvre is that the slip stream of the formation is fanned out over a large area and frequently upsets the fighter's aim, being particularly unpleasant near the ground."
These manoeuvres were practised at low level, which makes them remarkable. In a paragraph about high altitude formation flying it states that they could also be carried out to the detriment of the fighters pursuing, but that good fighting control from the lead aircraft was essential.
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.
Relatively easy to fit Allisons to the B-17? I'm not going to touch that nonsense.
Without quoting range altitude your numbers are meaningless for comparison purposes.
Why did Coastal command need b24 to close "the gap"?
So in 1942 RAF bomber command found out it could avoid being shot down by RAF spitfires in pursuit. To bad they didn't explain their tactics to the 8th USAAF as it could have spared them a lot of trouble.
How did they handle head on attacks?
Why did Coastal command need b24 to close "the gap"?
The B-17F had the upper turret, a .50 in the nose and two .50s, one to each side, in the "cheek" area.With the two machine guns in the power turret fitted to every RAF heavy bomber. Of all the Allied heavy bombers, only the early B-24s and B-17s went to war without forward-facing defences...and it took until the G-variant for the latter to get decent forward protection.
The B-17F had the upper turret, a .50 in the nose and two .50s, one to each side, in the "cheek" area.
The B-24E/D had "cheek" positions as well as the upper turret, the G-1 had the A-6 nose turret.
So both weren't completely helpless to frontal attack, just not as effective as ones with the twin .50 turrets installed in either's next variants.
Because Bomber Command refused to release any of the Lancaster production for Coastal Command. And the reason the Lancaster was in such high demand was because of its bomb capacity and range.
Hi
Not totally correct as Bomber Command did lend Lancasters and crews to Coastal Command during 1942 (although BC were not flush with the type at the time). I have attached a few details from work I undertook for a naval historian in 2006:
View attachment 604412
I hope that is of interest.
Mike
Navigator and bombardier (as long as the bombardier wasn't engaged in the bombing run).Who manned the cheek guns was it the Navigator.
The B-17F had the upper turret, a .50 in the nose and two .50s, one to each side, in the "cheek" area.
The B-24E/D had "cheek" positions as well as the upper turret, the G-1 had the A-6 nose turret.
So both weren't completely helpless to frontal attack, just not as effective as ones with the twin .50 turrets installed in either's next variants.
Hi
Not totally correct as Bomber Command did lend Lancasters and crews to Coastal Command during 1942 (although BC were not flush with the type at the time). I have attached a few details from work I undertook for a naval historian in 2006:
View attachment 604412
I hope that is of interest.
Mike
This makes a lot of sense. I was reading about one raid and the Halifax's flew a fairly loose formation and when attacked the target aircraft was instructed to leave the formation in a shallow dive. The idea being that the attacking fighter is being drawn into the fire of the other aircraft and the target has the freedom to evade reducing the chances of a hit.I suspect our colleague is merely trolling, as some of his statements are bordering on the ridiculous and are very much unsubstantiated.
Out of general interest, in 1942, the Air Fighting Development Unit at RAF Duxford carried out tactical trials by day and night using a 44 Sqn Lancaster I. Subsequently, a 'flying circus' of three Spitfires visited all the squadrons within No.5 Group Bomber Command to carry out familiarisation flights with the bomber crews. The following is taken from the report, No.47 Tactical Trials - Lancaster Aircraft. Under the heading Fighting Manoeuvres For Formations, there is a description of what action Lancasters should take when formation flying by day.
"28. It has also been found in the majority of recent daylight operations that the German fighters are shy of the power-operated turrets and stand off at 600-400 yards using their cannon. The result is that if any close formation is adopted by the bombers they present a mass target while adding nothing to their mutual fire support, owing to the extreme difficulty of achieving a correct aim at long range with our present sights.""29. It has therefore been necessary to develop a form of evasive action, which will give the bombers a chance to carry out individual evasion while maintaining their track to the target and giving each other assistance. Just before the fighters attack the Lancasters should climb up to 600 feet and numbers 2 and 3 should come well up on the beam of the leader."
"When the fighters close in the leader of the vic should undulate violently between 600 feet and ground level, while Nos. 2 and 3 carry out a modified form of corkscrew on either side of the leader beginning with a diving turn outwards of about 20 degrees and varying their height between 600 and 100 feet. Practise is necessary to ensure that the outside aircraft are never more than 300 to 400 yards from the leader and that they do not mask his guns by sliding in behind him during their inward movement. Nos. 2 and 3 should attempt to keep as close as possible to the leader until an attack actually develops so that during their evasion they will not go too far away from him. This evasive manoeuvre enables the formation to continue upon track while it gives the fighters difficult deflection shooting."
"The fighters found it hard to attack the leader as he was protected by the guns of the outside aircraft, and if they followed an outside aircraft in its corkscrew, they were soon drawn under the leader's guns. A further advantage of this manoeuvre is that the slip stream of the formation is fanned out over a large area and frequently upsets the fighter's aim, being particularly unpleasant near the ground."
These manoeuvres were practised at low level, which makes them remarkable. In a paragraph about high altitude formation flying it states that they could also be carried out to the detriment of the fighters pursuing, but that good fighting control from the lead aircraft was essential.
The B-17 was not impervious to attacking enemy aircraft, but it's defenses were such, that the Germans put alot of effort into applying armor to their Fw190A-8/R8 to protect the pilot.Given all its guns, was the B-17 effective in defending itself from Luftwaffe fighters?