Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
True.
Please, I am not claiming the B-17 or B-24 was the equal of the Lancaster when it came to lugging bombs over distance, just that difference isn't really as great as is sometimes reported because the reports/stories aren't comparing quite the same thing. Lancasters and Halifaxes didn't burn much fuel chasing planes like this around for 1/2 hour to two hours (?) before heading for Germany.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-pictures/story-17-a-19761.html
I hope I don't appear rude, but you don't seem to be listening. Until Bomber Command returned to daylight raids, at the end of the war, the Air Ministry didn't want them to fly any higher than 18,000'. Here, there seems to be an obsession, at times, with aircraft/engine performance, while the authorities, here (contrary to the "Butcher" Harris title) did make efforts to keep their crews alive.
I recommend you read "Gunning For the Enemy," the story of tail/mid-upper gunner "Wally" Macintosh, who shot down 8 plus one probable.
Once "Village Inn" plus infra-red recognition and the gyro gunsight came into use, making tracer redundant (so the fighter pilot didn't know he was being fired at until too late,) things changed massively. This also increased the usefulness of the .5", hence the "Rose" turret.
Already being done with the Mosquito, which could plant a 4000lb "cookie" onto Berlin twice per night.
The poster is right to query as to whether a high altitude impellor and gear ration could be introduced for Lancaster's Merlin in 1941. The topic is RAF daylight strategic bombing campaign results around 1941. RAF concerns about contrails above 18000ft disclosing their bombers in moonlight are irrelevant during the daylight.
Would the Typhoon be at all more favorable for conversion to escort range capability than contemporary Spitfires or would its teething troubles make that moot? The cannon bays take up a lot of space that seem prime for fuel (along with potential leading edge space with no cannon barrel punching through it), so omitting 2 of the cannons might be enough to faciliate long range combat radius.The RAF were in a position to mount large daylight raids with the Lancaster and Halifax from 1943 onwards but chose not to, they concentrated on night raids as didn't have a suitable long range escort. In fact no one (incl USAAF) was able to operate effectively by daylight without suffering heavy unsustainable casualties unless they had escorts. Once escorts arrived then the USAAF became really effective and I do not doubt that the RAF could have made the switch with similar results but chose not to as they had become effective at night bombing and would have been second in the queue for escorts anyway.
Tempests were a very effective escort for RAF bombers and could escort raids to the Rhur which is an important target but other things called V1's caused a diversion of resources. To many demands and not enough Tempests was a problem.
I meant more that with fast bombers cruising close to 300 MPH, fighters would be forced to fly even faster to allow a decent escort perimeter and scout around for interceptors. (otherwise resort to flying static top cover formations, which might help fighter range a bit -straight line cruising- but hurt ability to bounce enemy fighters)The first part is a mistaken premise. The escorts cannot cruise at the speed of the bombers or slightly above or they will not be able to respond in a timely fashion to the attackers. The US escort fighters in 1943/44 routinely cruised at over 300mph weaving back and forth over the 180-200mph bombers. It can take a fighter doing 200-220mph over two minutes to accelerate to full speed. In two minutes a fighter doing 360mph can cover 12 miles. By the time a slow cruising fighter gets up to combat speed it is too late. For the second part, nobody has really figured out how fast is fast enough. A-20s that could do over 300mph were't fast enough, Mosquitoes were. where is the dividing line?
The differnce being that it would be an interim measure until precision bombing capabilities were actually combat feasible.Which is pretty much any and all bombers the RAF could field in practice in 1941/42 except for the Mosquito.
What would be the minimum cruising altitude for bomber formations to practically avoid daytime flack well enough that enemy interceptor vs escort abilities become the deciding factor? Would 20,000 ft be enough?Again, only if you leave most of the bombs home. At which point it starts to become why bother.
The more practical counter-point is whether shifting production from historical merlin XX levels (along with propellers in use at the time) would have been practical if indeed they actually made a notable difference at altitude.The poster is right to query as to whether a high altitude impellor and gear ration could be introduced for Lancaster's Merlin in 1941. The topic is RAF daylight strategic bombing campaign results around 1941.
Would the Typhoon be at all more favorable for conversion to escort range capability than contemporary Spitfires or would its teething troubles make that moot? The cannon bays take up a lot of space that seem prime for fuel (along with potential leading edge space with no cannon barrel punching through it), so omitting 2 of the cannons might be enough to faciliate long range combat radius.
Typhoons might also make better matches for intercepting Fw-190s in the 1942 timeframe.
I meant more that with fast bombers cruising close to 300 MPH, fighters would be forced to fly even faster to allow a decent escort perimeter and scout around for interceptors. (otherwise resort to flying static top cover formations, which might help fighter range a bit -straight line cruising- but hurt ability to bounce enemy fighters)
.The differnce being that it would be an interim measure until precision bombing capabilities were actually combat feasible
What would be the minimum cruising altitude for bomber formations to practically avoid daytime flack well enough that enemy interceptor vs escort abilities become the deciding factor? Would 20,000 ft be enough?
It goes back to what you had for available bombers and try to compare them to the American bombers of 1942/43. The American bombers had engines with turbos that would give 1000hp max continuous to 27,000ft or above and they weren't good enough to keep 4 engine bombers doing 200+mph at altitudes over 20,000ft in large formations. Mainly because by the time you get to max cruise lean you are down to around 750hp. The Melrin XX wasn't much different. Max lean cruise was around 725-760hp depending on altitude (and without the turbo that was down around 18-20,000ft). Problem for the Melrin XX is that as you go above 18-20,000ft the cruise power drops. The B-17 could hold 750hp cruise to 35,000ft. Makes cruising at 24-26,000ft a breeze.With the lighter configurations of the earlier models of bombers themselves, pushing it a bit higher might have been more feasible in some respects too (without heavier modifications to engine performance envelope -supercharger and reduction gearing- or propellers used) but a different shift in long-term strategy and Bomber Command doctrine could have meant follow-on changes that kept the bombers high altitude capable as they got heavier.
The Merlin XX series already cruised well enough in the 20,000 ft range, but having enough power to climb beyond 20,000 ft in a reasonable manner is more the problem.
Beside the teething troubles there weren't enough to much of anything until the end of 1942.
If somebody has a data Sheet for a Mosquito MK IV??
I think some consideration should be given to how many bombers could be massed into a raid. Bomber command on night time raids wished the bomber stream to pass over flak belts and targets as quickly as possible to minimise losses. The same applied to night fighter opposition, even if a night fighter gets into the bomber stream there is a limit of time, fuel and ammunition to restrict losses.
?....
Typhoons might also make better matches for intercepting Fw-190s in the 1942 timeframe.
I meant more that with fast bombers cruising close to 300 MPH, fighters would be forced to fly even faster to allow a decent escort perimeter and scout around for interceptors. (otherwise resort to flying static top cover formations, which might help fighter range a bit -straight line cruising- but hurt ability to bounce enemy
The Merlin XX series already cruised well enough in the 20,000 ft range, but having enough power to climb beyond 20,000 ft in a reasonable manner is more the problem.
That may very well be but then they weren't flying quite the same mission. They weren't flying in formation which uses more fuel than flying independent even if in a bomber stream. They weren't spending several hundred gallons circling around waiting for the last planes of the formation to take-off. By flying several thousand feet below their "service" ceiling they saved another 100-200 gallons of fuel. Add it all up and there were several thousand pounds they could use for bombs that the Americans were using for fuel.
This is assuming the same target distance. If you want to use Lancasters and Halifax's on daylight raids using close formations for defense you have to take the bad with the good, and the bad means hundreds more gallons of fuel used per mission which cuts into the bomb load on all the medium and long range missions.
Would the Typhoon be at all more favorable for conversion to escort range capability than contemporary Spitfires or would its teething troubles make that moot? The cannon bays take up a lot of space that seem prime for fuel (along with potential leading edge space with no cannon barrel punching through it), so omitting 2 of the cannons might be enough to faciliate long range combat radius.
Typhoons might also make better matches for intercepting Fw-190s in the 1942 timeframe.
As to escort strategy? If we are selecting 1941 as the opening of RAF daylight bombing campaign, even given not enough production to offset 10% attrition MIA and 10-20% Class A/B battle damage, then RAF have to have the 'feasible' design in mind in 1939 to get through trials and into serial mass production. The Spitfire is the only airframe with escort potential but the NOTION of long range escort was deemed impossible by RAF, as well as USAAF, through 1941.