Just thinking about it, the more you actually try to aim at a target rather than just laying down fire at a moving target the more likely you are to just fly into what you are trying to shoot. I was once (only once) enjoying life on an Autobahn at 140MPH when a Sunday driver pulled across two lanes at about 60MPH, to overtake the truck that was also overtaking a truck. In seconds a clear road became blocked and that 80MPH difference in speed was huge, when the Sunday driver first moved it was at the limit of my vision, seconds later I nearly hit him or her.
Lancaster as an escorted, daylight bomber ala B-17/24?
- Thread starter IdahoRenegade
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
MycroftHolmes
Airman
- 25
- Jun 1, 2015
You can't simply scale-up losses when the size of the operation increases. If the British had sent 220 Wellingtons to Heligoland Bight, they certainly wouldn't have lost 120 of them - probably 20-25 would have been the maximum, since the German defences were what they were, and couldn't have been arbitrarily increased. As the saying goes "The more you send the fewer you lose".
The Me 109G14AS with an oversized super charger and water injection came into service about June 1944 which closed the performance gap with the P51 considerably. It wasn't until the Me 109K4 came into service in October 1944 that one could argue that the Me 109K4 could match the P51. It had the same speed and wasn't at a power to weight ratio disadvantage. The reality is the Me 109K4, at least part tolerably the Me 109G14AS was needed 9 months earlier, December 1943 when the first P51 started tentative missions thought there was no combat till January 1944.
The Problem for the German fighters was that the full pressure altitude (where the s/c can maintain 1 atmosphere pressure) of their single stage superchargers was around 19500 ft and above this speed and power dropped in a knee. The equivalent critical altitude of the P38 and P47 turbos was well over 25,000ft while the two stage Merlins were also comfortable at 25,000ft.
By forcing the Luftwaffe to intercept at 25,000ft the USAAF worsened the Me 109G6 and Fw 190 performance.
The reason Fw 190 pressed home their attack to much closer distances against US bombers wasn't just because the Fw 190s impressive fire power of 4x 20mm and 2x 13.2 but the heavy armour of the Fw 190 which could resist the US 50 caliber longer. The big radial engine with the armoured oil cooler protected the pilot along with 50 degree sloped bullet proof glass.
If it could resist the 50 calibre browning the 303 Browning with a bullet 1/4th the weight was going to have trouble despite higher ROF. The German MG131 13,2mm was reckoned 3 times more destructive than its 7.92mm rifle caliber analogue. The 50 versus 303 disparity would be greater.
Range was not such a big issue I think. I recall a German night fighter pilot recounting receiving accurate fire from a Lancaster rear gunner at 1100m. In those circumstances the smart night fighter pilots broke off to fight a less suspecting bomber. However the situation was different. Slow Closure rates exposed the German night fighters for much longer periods to return fire.
One would want at least 150 lbs of armour per gunner to protect them. Two less 500lb bombs.
Bomber stream tactics were no doubt somewhat effective during the day in saturating German defenses but they provided no interlocking protective fire. A "Heersusschoss" was an award to a Luftwaffe pilot for damaging a bomber so that it fell out of formation. It was considered and act of skill and bravery equal to a sucesful claim.
One of the reasons even US medium bombers had two pilots was the exhausting nature of formation flying.
So my view the Lancaster could be modified: 50 caliber guns on the rear, at least 1000lbs of additional armour. So long as they avoided the heaviest FLAK and had an escort and did not attempt to deep a penetration deep into Germany they could work.
Deep penetration raids against a functioning Luftwaffe would need two stage Merlins and likely formation flying and a copilot.
One can find BC losses, day/night and other stats, BC Main Page (lancaster-archive.com)
Glider
Captain
I think I am right is saying that the other big advantage of this turret was that the gunner had the parachute in the turret with him and could bale out more easily, significantly increasing the gunners chances of surviving. Indeed he could dive out between the guns saving a lot of time.
Letter to Alfred Rose from Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris, dated 19th June 1945. The final part of the letter is particularly telling – "....what is easily the best turret to date. Furthermore it is the only turret from which gunners can escape, if they have to abandon the aircraft, with any real chance of getting away with it, and we have had several Rose turret occupants back as the sole survivors of crews...."
Last edited:
More from Harris:
... in so far as turrets and guns were concerned, very little had been done between February, 1942, and May, 1945, to improve the defensive armament of heavy bombers and, apart from the Rose turret, no real progress had been made in producing for Bomber Command a turret which possessed the characteristics laid down by this Command in 1942. ... Throughout, those responsible for turret design and production displayed an extraordinary disregard for the requirements of the Command.
... in so far as turrets and guns were concerned, very little had been done between February, 1942, and May, 1945, to improve the defensive armament of heavy bombers and, apart from the Rose turret, no real progress had been made in producing for Bomber Command a turret which possessed the characteristics laid down by this Command in 1942. ... Throughout, those responsible for turret design and production displayed an extraordinary disregard for the requirements of the Command.
For what it's worth schemes were completed in 1942 for an 'armoured Lancaster II' for 'special duties'. This involved a 1250-1677 lb increase in armour for the crew/engines and three possible options for armouring the petrol tanks weighing an additional 3947-7847 lb.
I'm not sure what crazy plan these were meant for.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Does anyone know the weight fo armour carried by the B-17 or B-24 during 1943-45? The Lancaster Mk I carried at least 560 lbs as of late-1942. See this thread:"Crew protection on heavy bombers?"
Maximum air miles for Lancaster Mk I mission planning was:
1660 miles with 14,000 lbs ordnance and 1625 Impgal (including 270 Impgal for WUTO, climb & reserve)
2250 miles with 10,000 lbs ordnance and 2150 Impgal (including 270 Impgal for WUTO, climb & reserve) (this is full permanent tankage)
Reducing the fuel load by ~2000 lbs (278 Impgal) in trade for more armour and heavier armament would only reduce the range by about 350 miles, so the Mk I would be capable of:
1900 miles with 10,000 lbs ordnance and 1872 Impgal (including 270 Impgal for WUTO, climb & reserve)
All of the above ranges are calculated for 216-235 mph TAS cruise at 15,000-20,000 ft, and assumes all ordnance is dropped at about the half way point.
Maximum air miles for Lancaster Mk I mission planning was:
1660 miles with 14,000 lbs ordnance and 1625 Impgal (including 270 Impgal for WUTO, climb & reserve)
2250 miles with 10,000 lbs ordnance and 2150 Impgal (including 270 Impgal for WUTO, climb & reserve) (this is full permanent tankage)
Reducing the fuel load by ~2000 lbs (278 Impgal) in trade for more armour and heavier armament would only reduce the range by about 350 miles, so the Mk I would be capable of:
1900 miles with 10,000 lbs ordnance and 1872 Impgal (including 270 Impgal for WUTO, climb & reserve)
All of the above ranges are calculated for 216-235 mph TAS cruise at 15,000-20,000 ft, and assumes all ordnance is dropped at about the half way point.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
To be honest, once the cannon shells and Flak start hitting the aircraft, the armor is for the most part, useless.
The armor behind the pilot doesn't prevent shrapnel from coming up from underneath or down from above and the 30mm Minengeschoss rounds would easily pass through the fuselage and detonate within, sending splinters in all directions.
The armor behind the pilot doesn't prevent shrapnel from coming up from underneath or down from above and the 30mm Minengeschoss rounds would easily pass through the fuselage and detonate within, sending splinters in all directions.
I have read in numerous books from pilots that the sight of tracers coming at them got their attention, pilots in Vietnam often quoted seeing balls of fire coming towards them causing alarm as they got closer, same with Argentinian pilots in the Falklands who spoke of 7.62mm tracer from the MAG58's the British clamped to the upper railings as disconcerting. I think a pilot closing in on a Lanc or Fortress are not going to care if it's a .303 or .50, if tracers start flashing passed their hood close enough to touch they are going to break off the attack, lastly, it doesn't matter if a bomber is armed with .303's, .50's or a 20mm the effectiveness comes down to the skill of the gunner, nothing else.
A 1cm thick 1 square meter armour plate weighs 72kg about 150lbs.
Dorsal gunner. Id wrap a 2m by 90cm deep plate around in a 2/3rds circle about 1m diameter him so he is only exposed forward. I would give him armoured back rest and seat pan and a small shield that rotates with him. There is probably 200lbs there. It will also stop shells that enter the aircraft.
Rear Gunner. He gets a nice thick 15mm chunk in front of him, armoured seat and back.
Pilots get armoured seats, backrests, head armour and sides.
You can do a lot with 1000lbs on top of the 600lbs that is already there. I estimate 150lbs per crew member plus 600lbs for aircraft vitals.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Go the other way. Strip all armour and armament, cut crew to the minimum and fit high altitude Merlin's. An early V bomber.
Basically what they did with those carrying the Grand Slam, 5 man crew and one turret, apparently they were great to fly back from a mission.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
The Nene Lancaster might have been the answer. A Lancastrian with a pair of Nene's and the Merlin's shut down could cruise over 300mph a Lanc with four Nene's could possibly cruise at 300mph and dash to and from the target at a higher speed.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Must have been like driving a sports car
wuzak
Captain
Did the B-17 have all this?
Only 1 pilot in a Lancaster.
Rear gunner can't be completely protected, because he will need to see out. B-17 rear gunner had more protection, but less field of fire.
Pretty much what the pilots said. They had Merlin 24 engines and had all the radios and lots of other stuff taken out including bomb doors of course. Obviously not like a fighter but a massive change from a standard Lanc. I just read this morning about a pilot whose first mission with 617 sqdrn was to drop one on submarine pens. Dropping the bomb would be dangerous to the crew if they weren't braced for it, the plane leapt 250ft upwards, after that it was like a toy.
Admiral Beez
Major
My favourite daylight Lancaster is below, swap out the Merlins for four blade Griffons. Light up the Dewerts for the sprint over the target. Omit all the guns - or at best keep the tail turret.
With sufficient fighter escort our fast Lanc will be over the target and homebound in a jiff. One challenge is dual fuels.
With sufficient fighter escort our fast Lanc will be over the target and homebound in a jiff. One challenge is dual fuels.
