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

[buffnut453]

it wouldnt have made it as a day bomber it didnt have the armor of a b17 or b 24 or b25 if the lancaster was jumped by a group of fw 190s or 109e's they wouldnt have made it home

So, by inference, every B-17, B-24 and B-25 that WAS jumped by a group of Fw190s or Me109s DID make it home? Is that really what you're suggesting?

As another thread has mentioned, armour won't prevent a bomber being shot down unless the engines and all fuel tanks are protected. Crew protection armour is little more than a comfort blanket when fighters are lobbing cannon shells into the bomber.

And, oh by the way, the Lancaster was used in daylight operations throughout the war...so, clearly, it did "make it".

 

[pbehn]

it wouldnt have made it as a day bomber it didnt have the armor of a b17 or b 24 or b25 if the lancaster was jumped by a group of fw 190s or 109e's they wouldnt have made it home

Neither would the types you mentioned. No bomber alone could fight off a group of S/E fighters.

 

[VA5124]

So, by inference, every B-17, B-24 and B-25 that WAS jumped by a group of Fw190s or Me109s DID make it home? Is that really what you're suggesting?

As another thread has mentioned, armour won't prevent a bomber being shot down unless the engines and all fuel tanks are protected. Crew protection armour is little more than a comfort blanket when fighters are lobbing cannon shells into the bomber.

And, oh by the way, the Lancaster was used in daylight operations throughout the war...so, clearly, it did "make it".

im just saying better armored bombers would have a higher chance than the lancaster

 

[VA5124]

Neither would the types you mentioned. No bomber alone could fight off a group of S/E fighters.

you dont have to fight them when they see 50 cal lead flying at them they will leave

 

[pbehn]

you dont have to fight them when they see 50 cal lead flying at them they will leave

You are using the present tense, historically groups of unescorted bombers suffered unsustainable losses, as at Schweinfurt, a bomber alone has very little chance, the tail gunner cant make lead fly at more than one target at a time, and those targets have lead of their own.

 

[buffnut453]

im just saying better armored bombers would have a higher chance than the lancaster

That's not what you said. Survivability is based on a whole host of factors and, as noted previously, armour isn't going to stop cannon shells...which is precisely what the Luftwaffe fighters were shooting. Ergo, armour probably doesn't buy you much, except perhaps some goodwill from the crews that are flying the thing.

 

[VA5124]

That's not what you said. Survivability is based on a whole host of factors and, as noted previously, armour isn't going to stop cannon shells...which is precisely what the Luftwaffe fighters were shooting. Ergo, armour probably doesn't buy you much, except perhaps some goodwill from the crews that are flying the thing.

maybr but id ranther a heavy armored b17 than a sheet medal lancaster

 

[Peter Gunn]

you dont have to fight them when they see 50 cal lead flying at them they will leave

I'm pretty sure B-17's and B-24's threw plenty of lead at their attackers, I don't see too much evidence of them leaving because it was .50 and no .303, and how would you tell the difference at 500-600mph closing speeds?

"Scheisse Hans... they're shooting fifty caliber bullets at us, vamonos, mach schnell..." said no Luftwaffe pilot ever.

 

[pbehn]

I'm pretty sure B-17's and B-24's threw plenty of lead at their attackers, I don't see too much evidence of them leaving because it was .50 and no .303, and how would you tell the difference at 500-600mph closing speeds?

"Scheisse Hans... they're shooting fifty caliber bullets at us, vamonos, mach schnell..." said no Luftwaffe pilot ever.

Our 30mm cannon are no match for their huge 0.5s.

 

[VA5124]

Our 30mm cannon are no match for their huge 0.5s.

yalls 30mm mk108 cannon shoots a slower round at a slower fire rate than the us .50

 

[buffnut453]

maybr but id ranther a heavy armored b17 than a sheet medal lancaster

Take a look at the placement of the armour...see any gaps or chinks in the armour where bullets might get through?

Enjoy the comfort blanket, 'cos that's all the "heavy armor" in a B-17 provided.

 

[buffnut453]

you dont have to fight them when they see 50 cal lead flying at them they will leave

Wow, that's some impressive KoolAid you're drinking.

BTW...how does one "see 50 cal lead flying"? I've shot all sorts of weapons and never yet actually seen a bullet in flight.

 

[VA5124]

Wow, that's some impressive KoolAid you're drinking.

BTW...how does one "see 50 cal lead flying"? I've shot all sorts of weapons and never yet actually seen a bullet in flight.

i concede i had always heard the b17 was a good bomber armor wise tell everyone i sorry and im sorry i insulted the rafs lancasters

 

[pbehn]

Wow, that's some impressive KoolAid you're drinking.

BTW...how does one "see 50 cal lead flying"? I've shot all sorts of weapons and never yet actually seen a bullet in flight.

The bomb aimers on Lancs attacking the Tirpitz could see their main armament air burst shells coming towards them, it was a bit disturbing, they said.

 

[pbehn]

i concede i had always heard the b17 was a good bomber armor wise tell everyone i sorry and im sorry i insulted the rafs lancasters

You didn't insult them, take the sheet metal off a B-17 and you have a very impressive piece of modern art.

 

[pbehn]

yalls 30mm mk108 cannon shoots a slower round at a slower fire rate than the us .50

And it blows a huge hole in anything it hits.

 

[VA5124]

You didn't insult them, take the sheet metal off a B-17 and you have a very impressive piece of modern art.

i dont hate the lancaster anyways i just wouldnt trust it in a broad daylight raid thats all

 

[buffnut453]

i concede i had always heard the b17 was a good bomber armor wise tell everyone i sorry and im sorry i insulted the rafs lancasters

You'll find that many folk on this forum are willing to examine their preconceptions and engage in robust discussion. The B-17 and the Lancaster were both excellent bombers, each with their strengths and limitations. Those differences are what make discussions interesting. As much as humanly possible, we try to get rid of nationalistic stereotypes and discuss capabilities on their merits.

 

[pbehn]

i dont hate the lancaster anyways i just wouldnt trust it in a broad daylight raid thats all

Without an escort anything in broad daylight was unsustainable, the first use of B-26 in Netherlands lost all aircraft. The first daylight use of Lancasters in 1942 lost 58% to enemy aircraft and ground fire in Augsberg Bavaria.

 

[tomo pauk]

you dont have to fight them when they see 50 cal lead flying at them they will leave

You are new here, I gather. If an old fart can give a few words:
- flag waving yields no respect on this board
- grammar and punctuation can gain you respect.

Cheers and have fun.