Out of the Big Three WW2 bombers (B-17, B-24, Lancaster), was the Flying Fortress the most redundant?

Howard Gibson · Feb 24, 2023

Glider said:
Just a thought. Once you have sufficient and effective long range single engine fighter cover. There is no reason why the Lancaster and Halifax couldn't be used as a day bomber. The loss rate for the Lancaster on daytime missions was exactly the same as the B24.

Considering the much better range payload ability of the UK bombers, both of them would be more effective than either US design.

B-17s and B-24s were turbocharged and were able to fly in at well over 20,000ft. To attack them, the Germans had to climb to 30,000ft were P-47s had a speed advantage of something 50mph. Mustangs were similar. American aircraft all had some form of two-stage supercharging. The Germans did not.

Lancasters had Rolls Royce Merlins with single stage superchargers, so their high altitude was not particularly good. The Avro Lincolns with two-stage Merlins did not reach service during the war. Lancasters and Halifaxes did not have the protection and defensive firepower of the American bombers. A daylight Lancaster would have a lot more armour and .50 calibre guns, and a smaller bomb load, and it would be slower.

Lancasters flew daylight missions very late in the war. They were escorted by Mustangs. The attacking Luftwaffe were not nearly as well trained as the Luftwaffe who attacked the USAAF in 1943.

SaparotRob · Feb 25, 2023

Howard Gibson said:
Lancasters flew daylight missions very late in the war. They were escorted by Mustangs. The attacking Luftwaffe were not nearly as well trained as the Luftwaffe who attacked the USAAF in 1943.

Are there any photos of Lancaster's being escorted by Mustangs during WW II? I'd love to see that!

GrauGeist · Feb 25, 2023

SaparotRob said:
Are there any photos of Lancaster's being escorted by Mustangs during WW II? I'd love to see that!

There may be, but there are photos of B-17s being escorted by Spitfires, which is also cool.

JDCAVE · Feb 25, 2023

33k in the air said:
The Crucible of War 1939–1945 — The Official History of the Royal Canadian Air Force, Volume III by Brereton Greenhous, Stephen J. Harris, William C. Johnston, and William G.P. Rawlings (University of Toronto Press, 1994) has this to say about crew survivability (Table 7 on page 755). It cites Bomber Command Headquarters. 'An Examination of the emergency escape arrangements from Bomber Command operational aircraft.' 19 May 1945, DHist 181.003 (D4598) as the source.

Code:

Crew Position and Survivability in Bomber Command Aircraft January–June 1943 Position Lancaster Halifax Wellington Pilot 9.6% 20.8% 14.6% Navigator 13.8% 36.2% 21.0% Wireless Operator 11.9% 32.5% 18.5% Flight engineer 12.4% 34.0% — Bomber-aimer 13.2% 31.4% 18.5% Mid-upper gunner 8.5% 27.3% — Rear gunner 8.0% 23.4% 14.6% Overall 10.9% 29.0% 17.5%

That's interesting. And suspicious to me. Nonetheless, the information is sourced from "Bomber Command Headquarters, 'An Examination of the emergency escape arrangements from Bomber Command operational aircraft,' 19 May 1945. DHist 181.003 (D4598). There must be some substance to the information.

Why am I suspicious? Because the rear turret escape procedure for Halifax and Lancaster should be nearly the same in both types, but from this table, the survival of the rear gunner on the Halifax is 3 times that of the Lancaster. That's a head scratcher and not logical, in my opinion.

One answer to this might be that differences in targets and the relative contribution of those aircraft to those targets may have a significant weight or influence on the summary statistics.

I can't argue with the differences of the bomb aimer, navigator as they were closely located to the escape hatch in the Halifax. Dad always talked about how difficult it was for a pilot to escape from a Lancaster. Not certain about the WOp and flight engineer.

Important to look at the original source material for this to understand what is going on.

Jim

pbehn · Feb 25, 2023

JDCAVE said:
That's interesting. And suspicious to me. Nonetheless, the information is sourced from "Bomber Command Headquarters, 'An Examination of the emergency escape arrangements from Bomber Command operational aircraft,' 19 May 1945. DHist 181.003 (D4598). There must be some substance to the information.

Why am I suspicious? Because the rear turret escape procedure for Halifax and Lancaster should be nearly the same in both types, but from this table, the survival of the rear gunner on the Halifax is 3 times that of the Lancaster. That's a head scratcher and not logical, in my opinion.

One answer to this might be that differences in targets and the relative contribution of those aircraft to those targets may have a significant weight or influence on the summary statistics.

I can't argue with the differences of the bomb aimer, navigator as they were closely located to the escape hatch in the Halifax. Dad always talked about how difficult it was for a pilot to escape from a Lancaster. Not certain about the WOp and flight engineer.

Important to look at the original source material for this to understand what is going on.

Jim

The instructions may have been the same but the planes were different, if you have to cross the main spar in a Lancaster it is extremely difficult, cannot normally be done with a parachute attached.

Glider · Feb 25, 2023

Howard Gibson said:
B-17s and B-24s were turbocharged and were able to fly in at well over 20,000ft. To attack them, the Germans had to climb to 30,000ft were P-47s had a speed advantage of something 50mph. Mustangs were similar. American aircraft all had some form of two-stage supercharging. The Germans did not.

Lancasters had Rolls Royce Merlins with single stage superchargers, so their high altitude was not particularly good. The Avro Lincolns with two-stage Merlins did not reach service during the war. Lancasters and Halifaxes did not have the protection and defensive firepower of the American bombers. A daylight Lancaster would have a lot more armour and .50 calibre guns, and a smaller bomb load, and it would be slower.

Lancasters flew daylight missions very late in the war. They were escorted by Mustangs. The attacking Luftwaffe were not nearly as well trained as the Luftwaffe who attacked the USAAF in 1943.

There was at least one large daylight raid in May 1944 on the Rhur using I think Halifax's, escorted by Tempests. There were no loses. I doubt that we could have reached Berlin with Tempests as escort but the Rhur is a very important target. I will try and find the details

JDCAVE · Feb 25, 2023

pbehn said:
The instructions may have been the same but the planes were different, if you have to cross the main spar in a Lancaster it is extremely difficult, cannot normally be done with a parachute attached.

I'm referring to the rear gunner in this instance. The rear gunner simply turned his turret opened the door and fell out. No aircraft structures to hit, and I can't see this being different for the Halifax. And nobody crossed the main spar to exit the Lancaster whilst abandoning the aircraft under the emergency method. WOp and mid upper gunner exited via the entrance door. The rest of the crew exited via the front hatch. I've attached dad's Parachute and Dinghy drill notes. Note these also include revision for the aircraft equipped with the "mid-upper turret located above the bomb bay step". That's a reference to the Lancaster X with the Glenn Martin 250 mid upper turrets.

Jim

JDCAVE · Feb 25, 2023

Glider said:
There was at least one large daylight raid in May 1944 on the Rhur using I think Halifax's, escorted by Tempests. There were no loses. I doubt that we could have reached Berlin with Tempests as escort but the Rhur is a very important target. I will try and find the details

I scanned through Middlebrook and Everitt they don't record this raid.

Glider · Feb 25, 2023

JDCAVE said:
I scanned through Middlebrook and Everitt they don't record this raid.

I admit to finding it difficult to support and withdraw the observation (until I find it)

JDCAVE · Feb 25, 2023

Glider said:
I admit to finding it difficult to support and withdraw the observation (until I find it)

Roger that! Sometimes our recollections let us down. It has me.

Further research in M and E: Homberg, 27-August-1944 the first major raid by Bomber Command in daylight since 12-August-1941. 9 squadrons of Spitfires provided support on outward flight and 7 squadrons of spitfires on return flight.

Jim

Howard Gibson · Feb 25, 2023

SaparotRob said:
Are there any photos of Lancaster's being escorted by Mustangs during WW II? I'd love to see that!

If you are escorting bombers, you want to fly several thousand feet about them so that you can pounce on attacking fighters. If you form up on a bomber's wingtip, you are tactically useless. Not a good photo op.

33k in the air · Feb 25, 2023

Howard Gibson said:
Lancasters flew daylight missions very late in the war. They were escorted by Mustangs. The attacking Luftwaffe were not nearly as well trained as the Luftwaffe who attacked the USAAF in 1943.

According to Avro Lancaster — The Definitive Record (2nd Edition) by Harry Holmes, the Lancaster was despatched on a total of 108,264 nighttime bombing missions and 40,139 daytime bombing missions. That's a 73% to 27% ratio. Thus, just over one-quarter were conducted in daytime.

JDCAVE · Feb 25, 2023

33k in the air said:
According to Avro Lancaster — The Definitive Record (2nd Edition) by Harry Holmes, the Lancaster was despatched on a total of 108,264 nighttime bombing missions and 40,139 daytime bombing missions. That's a 73% to 27% ratio. Thus, just over one-quarter were conducted in daytime.

Dad flew flew 11 of 31 operations during daylight Sept-44 to March-45 . There were no losses due to fighter attacks on any of these--all losses due to flak, "friendly" bombs or unknown causes.

GrauGeist · Feb 25, 2023

SaparotRob said:
Are there any photos of Lancaster's being escorted by Mustangs during WW II? I'd love to see that!

Here's some fighters escorting U.S. bombers, including a Spitfire:

Fighter Escort: “Little Friends”

During the first half of the strategic bombing campaign, the USAAF lacked fighters that could escort its heavy bombers on strikes against targets in Germany. As a result, heavy bomber crews took

www.nationalmuseum.af.mil

GregP · Feb 25, 2023

Not during the war, but ...

SaparotRob · Feb 25, 2023

That's why I phrased it that way. I'm sure that there are pics of restored warbirds in unusual formations.

SaparotRob · Feb 25, 2023

GregP said:
Not during the war, but ...

Bet they make beautiful music together.

pbehn · Feb 25, 2023

JDCAVE said:
I'm referring to the rear gunner in this instance. The rear gunner simply turned his turret opened the door and fell out. No aircraft structures to hit, and I can't see this being different for the Halifax. And nobody crossed the main spar to exit the Lancaster whilst abandoning the aircraft under the emergency method. WOp and mid upper gunner exited via the entrance door. The rest of the crew exited via the front hatch. I've attached dad's Parachute and Dinghy drill notes. Note these also include revision for the aircraft equipped with the "mid-upper turret located above the bomb bay step". That's a reference to the Lancaster X with the Glenn Martin 250 mid upper turrets.

Jim

I think with th rear gunner his parachute was hung up outside the turret because of its bulk. So the rear gunner had to turn the turret get his parachute clip it on and then turn the turret again to get out. Only one engine supplied power to the rear turret, if that was stopped he was stuck.

GrauGeist · Feb 25, 2023

The Ball Turrets on U.S. bombers were also tricky to bail out from and due to limited internal space, the gunner's parachute was stowed outside of the turret, nearby.
Some gunners did wear a chest 'chute, however and this would have helped in reducing time to bail out.

Clayton Magnet · Feb 25, 2023

MrSmoothie said:
It has seemed to me that the only advantage of the Lanc was its superior lift capability. What would its performance have been like had it hauled the power turrets, .50 cal Brownings, and ammo carried by B-17's or B-24's? What would their reputation have been had they flown daylight precision missions starting at the same time as the 17's (no fighter escort)? It seems to me that 3 turrets with .303 Brownings would not have been much protection (and no fixed mount guns). I think I've read that Lancs did do daytime missions, but I believe that was late in the war, with little Luftwaffe opposition. The other very obvious advantage is that the British manufactured them -- without them, it's not like they were going to make 17's or 24's under license.

There is a compelling argument for ditching the defensive armament all together, with the corresponding bump in performance. Box formations and massed bomber firepower proved to be almost ineffective at preventing fighter attacks anyway.
The .303 on British bombers probably wasn't the best option in hindsight, but then again, either was the .50 Browning.

Out of the Big Three WW2 bombers (B-17, B-24, Lancaster), was the Flying Fortress the most redundant?

Senior Airman

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Senior Airman

Colonel

Captain

Senior Airman

Attachments

Senior Airman

Captain

Senior Airman

Senior Airman

Staff Sergeant

Senior Airman

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Major

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

Colonel

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Staff Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads