syscom3
Pacific Historian
And what is the purpose of a bomber? To drop bombs and destroy the target. If the target is destroyed, then the aircraft has performed its role. If not, then it was a waste of time and material.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It seems to me that that a huge portion of the quality of a machine is it's ability to bring it's crew back from it's mission. A well trained crew is a valuable asset that cannot be easily replaced...
True enough...but there has to be some consideration about durability.And what is the purpose of a bomber? To drop bombs and destroy the target. If the target is destroyed, then the aircraft has performed its role. If not, then it was a waste of time and material.
I can see the qualities of the Lanc as far as payload goes, but in the case of being attacked by a determined enemy, how does it stack up against the B-17's ability to absorbe damage and remain airworthy?
It seems to me that that a huge portion of the quality of a machine is it's ability to bring it's crew back from it's mission. A well trained crew is a valuable asset that cannot be easily replaced...
This is not backed up by experience as outlined in the USAAF Bombing Survey which reviewed the effect of the bombing campaign. Very briefly the larger number of smaller bombs tended to destroy the items that support the manufacturing process but to totally destroy the machinery, against which the bigger boms were more effective. Going from memory, there was an example of an electrical station which had been bombed a number of times by the USAAF and it had been knocked out for short periods as things such as power links, utilities, water supplies had been damaged by the bombing but were fairly easy to repair but the generators and other heavy machinery were untouched as they were in protected buildings. A Halifax raid totally destroyed these key piesces of equipment with their 4,000lb cookies and it was never repairedBut the cookie was an air-pressure bomb and could not penetrate very well. It was great for areal bombing cities, but not very suitable for destroying bridges, bunkers, heavy machinery. You would be surprised by the amount of damage such a bomb would do on these machines (not as much as you would think). Roofs are usually easily repaired and usually factories were up and running at 100% capacity within a few weeks after a US attack.
I don't know about the B17 but the Lancaster had the same loss ratio as the B24 on similar daylight raids with its markedly smaller defensive guns. Its more than just the guns the tactics differed. The USAAF used to stay in formation and slug it out. RAF heavy bombers on daylight missions flew in similar formations the the aircraft under attack was encouraged to evade within the formation often diving underneath the formation. The idea being to make a more difficult target and bring the fighter into the arc of fire of other bombers.
So the B-17 was better at flying formation?
Because surely with a Lancaster with no belly guns or waist guns you'll tell them to dive, alone?
Don't misunderstand my commentI am not deriding anything
just pointing out that different tactics wound up with different solutions and to criticize a night bomber for not having day bomber guns seems a bit unfair
The best measure of the Lancaster and Flying Fortress would be addressed by the question 'how would each bomber fare at the other bomber's job'?
Some of the pilots of the newer B-17 design balked at the prospect of hauling that motorised chin turret into the plane's drag factorThe older B-17 design may not have been as aerodynamically efficient either
.....
Yes it disapeared fast because other superior equipment like the B-29 was available and not because there was anything particularly wrong with it.
Ah, thanks Glider (throws book out of the window). But things like the Bieleveld viaduct and U-boat pens is another matter I suppose?This is not backed up by experience as outlined in the USAAF Bombing Survey which reviewed the effect of the bombing campaign. Very briefly the larger number of smaller bombs tended to destroy the items that support the manufacturing process but to totally destroy the machinery, against which the bigger boms were more effective. Going from memory, there was an example of an electrical station which had been bombed a number of times by the USAAF and it had been knocked out for short periods as things such as power links, utilities, water supplies had been damaged by the bombing but were fairly easy to repair but the generators and other heavy machinery were untouched as they were in protected buildings. A Halifax raid totally destroyed these key piesces of equipment with their 4,000lb cookies and it was never repaired
The PB4Y and B32 were superior to the B24, let alone the B29.
by 1945, the B24 was a dated design that had strong points and weak points. It was removed from service so quickly because it had run its course in design and there was little that could be done to improve it.