The only thing I can think of is that Lancs (and Halifaxes) had more weight in their defensive armament with the total weight of guns ammunition turrets and maybe strengthening needed for them at the rear.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The only thing I can think of is that Lancs (and Halifaxes) had more weight in their defensive armament with the total weight of guns ammunition turrets and maybe strengthening needed for them at the rear.Here's some background - the text which accompanied that photo on FB's 'PlaneHistoria' (I fianlly found it!)
'The incredible power of the German MK 108 30 mm autocannon is shown here on this Blenheim IV light bomber, which was hit by the weapon during British tests. Even the stoutly-constructed and rugged B-17 Flying Fortress was known to disintegrate when hit with as little as four MG 108 rounds, and the more lightly constructed RAF Lancaster and Halifax heavy bombers were even more susceptible to fatal battle damage from this weapon.'
To which I replied:
'can I see some evidence to back up the claim that the Lancaster was more lightly constructed than a B17? I find this slightly difficult to accept without clarification'
Reply
Rod Wylie
plenty of evidence around.
The Lanc was built light so as to carry large bomb loads.
Good read would be Lancaster Men by Peter Rees.
Me
Rod Wylie and yet it has an unladen weight almost the same as a B17 and is slightly smaller in all dimensions...? I'm crying BS
Jon Chapman
it was built differently, using a geodesic tubular steel design which had a very high strength/weight ratio, and was more spacious and could vary a higher volume as well as weight.
Rod Wylie
Or maybe'Big week' by James Holland
Me
Rod Wylie instead of digging yourself in even deeper, find me an extract from either book which refers to the Lancaster being 'lightly built' or more vulnerable to battle damage than contemporary four engined bombers.
Rod Wylie
Jeez , I'm a busy man.
Cant you read them yourself ?
Me
No, because there don't seem to be any [references online]. Someone with your self declared level of expertise and certainty should easily be able to dig those references out, eh?
... y'all know - the usual social media descent into snippy comments and replies (mea culpa!). But in all seriousness, has anyone ever heard anything to support this claim? As others have noted, Lancaster vulnerability would seem to be because of the nature of night fighting and context, NOT the airframe per se. As for 'lightly built', surely that is indeed just boll0c£s?
PS - in addition to the above... I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that part of the Lancaster's strength derived from the original spec which included the capability of being catapult launched (I think this relates to short airfields rather than for naval employment and at a period when the RAF hierarchy were increasingly unsure how these ever heavier aircraft would get into the air unless runways were massively increased in length )
Is that false memory on my behalf, or maybe a since disproven myth?
Well.I have read that all of the first 4 heavies (ie Stirling, Manchester, Lancaster, and Halifax) weighed a bit more because the early/original Specification required them to be compatible with assisted TO methods. I do not know hw accurate this is, or how much weight could be accounted for by the requirement, as the requirement was relaxed or removed for all except the Stirling?
I have also read that there were tests of assisted TO for the Stirling, where a trough in the ground was used as a track for some sort of heavy mover vehicle that pulled the Stirling, helping it accelerate during the early stage of TO. I believe the results showed the concept worked, but it turned out not to be needed in service.
I think the article describing the tests was in one of the RAFHS periodicals.
I think the good chap is really confused, he seems to be talking of the Wellington with mention of the geodesic airframe, again incorrect with the tubular steel mention, they were pressed duralumin.it was built differently, using a geodesic tubular steel design
That is because all the elves and their little files were making Merlin enginesLancasters were made from a solid billet of cast iron with a few holes milled out here and there for the bombs and crew, this was done after lunch by housewives in Manchester and Liverpool.
PS - in addition to the above... I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that part of the Lancaster's strength derived from the original spec which included the capability of being catapult launched (I think this relates to short airfields rather than for naval employment and at a period when the RAF hierarchy were increasingly unsure how these ever heavier aircraft would get into the air unless runways were massively increased in length )
Is that false memory on my behalf, or maybe a since disproven myth?
I have read that all of the first 4 heavies (ie Stirling, Manchester, Lancaster, and Halifax) weighed a bit more because the early/original Specification required them to be compatible with assisted TO methods. I do not know how accurate this is, or how much weight could be accounted for by the requirement, as the requirement was relaxed or removed for all except the Stirling?
I have also read that there were tests of assisted TO for the Stirling, where a trough in the ground was used as a track for some sort of heavy mover vehicle that pulled the Stirling, helping it accelerate during the early stage of TO. I believe the results showed the concept worked, but it turned out not to be needed in service.
I think the article describing the tests was in one of the RAFHS periodicals.
Here's some background - the text which accompanied that photo on FB's 'PlaneHistoria' (I fianlly found it!)
'The incredible power of the German MK 108 30 mm autocannon is shown here on this Blenheim IV light bomber, which was hit by the weapon during British tests. Even the stoutly-constructed and rugged B-17 Flying Fortress was known to disintegrate when hit with as little as four MG 108 rounds, and the more lightly constructed RAF Lancaster and Halifax heavy bombers were even more susceptible to fatal battle damage from this weapon.'
To which I replied:
'can I see some evidence to back up the claim that the Lancaster was more lightly constructed than a B17? I find this slightly difficult to accept without clarification'
Reply
Rod Wylie
plenty of evidence around.
The Lanc was built light so as to carry large bomb loads.
Good read would be Lancaster Men by Peter Rees.
Me
Rod Wylie and yet it has an unladen weight almost the same as a B17 and is slightly smaller in all dimensions...? I'm crying BS
Jon Chapman
it was built differently, using a geodesic tubular steel design which had a very high strength/weight ratio, and was more spacious and could vary a higher volume as well as weight.
Rod Wylie
Or maybe'Big week' by James Holland
Me
Rod Wylie instead of digging yourself in even deeper, find me an extract from either book which refers to the Lancaster being 'lightly built' or more vulnerable to battle damage than contemporary four engined bombers.
Rod Wylie
Jeez , I'm a busy man.
Cant you read them yourself ?
Me
No, because there don't seem to be any [references online]. Someone with your self declared level of expertise and certainty should easily be able to dig those references out, eh?
... y'all know - the usual social media descent into snippy comments and replies (mea culpa!). But in all seriousness, has anyone ever heard anything to support this claim? As others have noted, Lancaster vulnerability would seem to be because of the nature of night fighting and context, NOT the airframe per se. As for 'lightly built', surely that is indeed just boll0c£s?
..all of which, in addition to being stressed for catapult launching (an airframe testing experience without doubt and NOT something a 'lightly built' airframe would likely cope with on a repeated basis) AND having an unladen weight around the same as the B17 leads me to conclude...I would say the Manchester had to be "over engineered" compared to many other designs of the day simply because it had three very heavy turrets and the rear gunner had to be able to access his turret. There was little change from the Manchester to Lancaster fuselage design, the Lancaster ended up carrying bomb loads that a Manchester couldnt dream of getting off the ground even if its two Vulture engines performed as expected.
My take on it, reading German night fighter reports the preferred way to attack the heavies was to sneak up from underneath and aim at the wing either between the inner engine and wing root or between the engines themselves, remember too that we are talking very close range, within a 100 meters and with two 20mm cannons spaced only .5 to 1 meter apart, taking that into consideration I doubt very much any four engined bomber, Lanc Halifax B17 B24 B29 would survive a two second burst of mine shells concentrated into such a small area from such close range, it would also explain why very few crew members got out as once the wing integrity was lost and the wing folded the plane would rapidly go out of control.However, it's been said that Boeing "over-built" the B-17. I doubt this was actually the case. The B-17 was designed to be rugged and that concept proved valuable years later, when it was put to the test during the war.
It was able to absorb damage that most other heavy bombers simply could not withstand, and still remain in the air.
British aircraft like the Blenheim were quite lightly built.
That photo looks like the shell was filled with explosive not a solid shot like ordinary bullets.
Quite true, however for contextBritish aircraft like the Blenheim were quite lightly built. That photo looks like the shell was filled with explosive not a solid shot like ordinary bullets.
I wish you a speedy recovery. As an aside, I agree with the drugs based approach to managing pain. I think that it's one too far with doctor saying that we need to cope with pain naturally. Once you get pain you realize it has to be coped with, so good luck.Thank you - this is the pic! And thanks for your wishes - much appreciated. Tramadol, Gabapentin and Codeine are due to visit me once again in about two hours. This can be the tricky bit...
EDIT - that picture really shows how lightly constructed the Blenheim was!