Admiral Beez
Major
Drop the armament, focus on streamlining and top speed, like a big Mosquito or Lancastrian with bombs. The benefits are speed and reduced cost and manpower. Effective as a night bomber or death trap?
Would an unarmed Lancaster be effective or a death trap?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,020
- Jun 25, 2013
Stripping the armament from a Lancaster would not be sufficient to make it a fast bomber. About the only way to make it one, a four-engined cousin of the Mosquito, would be to start from scratch. I'd have to sit down with one of my design books (I've got copies of Nicolai, among other) and tools to be reasonably certain, but I don't think it's inconceivable for Mosquito-like speed and range would be within reason.
However, it could not be done by removing the Lancaster's armament: it would need to be a clean-sheet design. Of course, one of the important uses for the gunners on the Lancaster was to watch for fighters approaching from areas where the remainder of the flight crew couldn't see.
However, it could not be done by removing the Lancaster's armament: it would need to be a clean-sheet design. Of course, one of the important uses for the gunners on the Lancaster was to watch for fighters approaching from areas where the remainder of the flight crew couldn't see.
Shortround6
Major General
The Performance numbers on WIKI seem pretty good. Be careful of the weights though. And note that the ranges given are with 1020 imp gallons of fuel inside the old bomb bay.
taking those tanks out is going to cut the range by about 1/3.
Max cruise of 290mph may not be anywhere near fast enough.
taking those tanks out is going to cut the range by about 1/3.
Max cruise of 290mph may not be anywhere near fast enough.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I've read about effectiveness of defensive armaments on bombers, pro and con. I've wondered about bombers requiring them at all on night missions, other than the tail gunner. That guy has got to be useful. Then I thought a belly turret would provide another useful look-out especially since night fighters attacked from below. I believe the Lancaster didn't have a belly turret. On the whole I would think a lightened load would reduce casualties, increase range or bomb load or speed. Of course, your mileage may vary.
- Thread starter
- #5
Admiral Beez
Major
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Might have better luck "cleaning up" a Stirling for your suggested mission profile.
While both the Stirling and Lancaster had comparable speeds, the Stirling had better maneuvering characteristics, which would aid in evading NFs.
While both the Stirling and Lancaster had comparable speeds, the Stirling had better maneuvering characteristics, which would aid in evading NFs.
- Thread starter
- #7
Admiral Beez
Major
Perhaps we need to swap out two Merlins for over-target sprints?
Or pull the tail gunner...
Last edited:
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
Avro did indeed design and build a fast, un-armed four-engine bomber, although it was a bit late for WW2 ........................
If all British bombers were to be this type it may have some merit but as a small scale production it would be a waste of time. It couldn't operate in a bomber stream with other Lancasters and Halifaxes so would probably be more not less vulnerable. There were all sorts of calculations to do with the speed size and concentration of the bomber stream. Speed was always a help in crossing flak and giving defences less time to react but defensive fire was also always a deterrent.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
I could imagine such an aircraft in the Pathfinder role, possible stealth profile (Mosquito-like) would eliminate the need for chaff and the requirement for defensive arms would be at a minimum. IIRC some Pathfinder Lancasters loitered outside the target zone, at what altitude I don't know. But in the end it's a numbers game and the Lancaster was as good, IMHO, as a British heavy was going to get. For pure flight, I would take a Lanc over a Fort or Liberator, any day. 
Sounds like an interesting idea, but agree that it might not give as much extra performance as possibly needed, also the logistics of operating different performing aircraft within a bomber stream; you fly at the lowest common denominator, not the highest. The absense of turrets provides an insecurity that perhaps is difficult to quantify, but they had their usefulness. Certainly providing glasing for lookouts was a very useful feature. Do you equip only a couple of squadrons with this aircraft? And what kind of targets or ops would they fly? Lancasters flew a lot of operations during daylight hours, particularly against targets in France. Harris was actually concerned about the casualties suffered by French civilians (although he had no compunction when blowing up Germans), so insisted that raids against industrial targets in France be carried out in afternoons, with the return home under the cover of darkness. The raid against the Schneider Works at Le Cruesot was a daring low level attack involving around 94 Lancs in October 1942; it was considered a success, although others were not so successful; nonetheless, Lancs were active during daylight hours.
As an aside, I recently learned that, conversely, the US 8th Air Force carried out night bombing raids alongside Bomber Command squadrons in late 1943; aircraft of the 422nd Bombing Squadron equipped with B-17s flew some eight operations at night against targets in the German heartland. Losses were low and results satisfactory, but despite this, the exercise wasn't followed up again with any meaningful result.
So, back on topic though, these moded Lancasters probably could only be effective if launched on single type raids, so then how many are going to be built? How useful might they be? And when might this work be undertaken? Throughout the war BC operated an esoteric mix of different aircraft with differing performances and warloads; standardisation made sense and the Lanc was probably the best type for this. It's interesting to note that at the beginning of 1943, less than a third of the RAF's heavies were Lancs, by the end of the year, the Lanc outnumbered the four engined heavies and Stirlings and Merlin engined Halifaxes had been removed from frontline ops by the entry of 1944.
Sounds to me like you might be creating an aircraft then looking for a use for it.
As an aside, I recently learned that, conversely, the US 8th Air Force carried out night bombing raids alongside Bomber Command squadrons in late 1943; aircraft of the 422nd Bombing Squadron equipped with B-17s flew some eight operations at night against targets in the German heartland. Losses were low and results satisfactory, but despite this, the exercise wasn't followed up again with any meaningful result.
So, back on topic though, these moded Lancasters probably could only be effective if launched on single type raids, so then how many are going to be built? How useful might they be? And when might this work be undertaken? Throughout the war BC operated an esoteric mix of different aircraft with differing performances and warloads; standardisation made sense and the Lanc was probably the best type for this. It's interesting to note that at the beginning of 1943, less than a third of the RAF's heavies were Lancs, by the end of the year, the Lanc outnumbered the four engined heavies and Stirlings and Merlin engined Halifaxes had been removed from frontline ops by the entry of 1944.
Sounds to me like you might be creating an aircraft then looking for a use for it.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,020
- Jun 25, 2013
I've weighed in on the counter-intuitive OR results about bombers' defensive armament, with the reduced net number of casualties, but this is due to the increased bomber payload permitting fewer sorties and the smaller crews resulting in a net reduction in the number of personnel lost even if the loss rate increases.
I suspect that a four-engined bomber, with defensive ECM (chaff, jammers) but without defensive weaponry would still be seen as needing a crew of at least four (pilot, navigator, bombardier, radio operator, ECM operator) or five (the four plus a co-pilot).
As to potential performance? Some of the penultimate four-engine piston engined aircraft could cruise at speeds approaching the top speed of WW2 fighter aircraft, with the Republic XF-12 Rainbow probably being completely uninterceptable by any piston-powered fighter, with a cruise speed approaching 390 knots.
I suspect that a four-engined bomber, with defensive ECM (chaff, jammers) but without defensive weaponry would still be seen as needing a crew of at least four (pilot, navigator, bombardier, radio operator, ECM operator) or five (the four plus a co-pilot).
As to potential performance? Some of the penultimate four-engine piston engined aircraft could cruise at speeds approaching the top speed of WW2 fighter aircraft, with the Republic XF-12 Rainbow probably being completely uninterceptable by any piston-powered fighter, with a cruise speed approaching 390 knots.
Shortround6
Major General
A big Mosquito might work. The Lancastrian........not so much.
A Mosquito B IV had an economical cruising speed of 265mph and a cruise at max lean of 327mph, top speed was 380mph(?)
Lancastrian had an economical cruising speed of 200-230mph. Max lean of around 265-285mph and a top speed of 310-315mph.
sources seem to differ, 1946 Jane's differs from Wiki.
Lancaster III was good for 216mph (?) most economical, 227-247 max lean cruise and 285-287mph top speed.
For some reason the max lean cruise on the aircraft data sheet is about 20mph lower than actual tests of aircraft, including a mean speed test of 10 productionaircraft.
Nobody zipped around at max speed, at least not for very long, so max lean is about the max cruise that would generally be used and often the speed was even lower to get the most bombs to the target. 200 Imp gallons is over 1400lbs and 200 gallon between 4 engines is only 50 gallons per engine on a 6 hour or more flight so cruise power, even if lean, can make a considerable difference.
Yanking the turrets out of an existing bomber and plating/faring over the holes isn't going to get you mosquito like performance.
A four engine Mosquito (or much larger twin than the original Mosquito) might have done very well. I am not sure about a slower plane.
There was always an advantage to the bomber stream going faster. The Halifax ditched the front turret to achieve that. As well as providing defensive fire the turrets provided eyes. How much having these eyes protected the plane and the stream is a matter of statistics, even when spotting an enemy fighter many gunners didn't fire in order not to draw attention to other LW fighters.
Shortround6
Major General
I have read, but don't know how true it is, that a lot of British bombers didn't fly at max lean cruise. Perhaps to increase payload?
i picked the 200 gallons as being approximately 10% of the bomb load. perhaps a bit more. The planes may have been able to cruise fast and suffer fewer losses per 100 planes flying the mission, BUT if you needed 10% more planes to drop the same tonnage of bombs, what does that do the losses?
I am not claiming to the know the answer. Just pointing out a factor in the thinking.
i picked the 200 gallons as being approximately 10% of the bomb load. perhaps a bit more. The planes may have been able to cruise fast and suffer fewer losses per 100 planes flying the mission, BUT if you needed 10% more planes to drop the same tonnage of bombs, what does that do the losses?
I am not claiming to the know the answer. Just pointing out a factor in the thinking.
The XF-12 wasn't a bomber but if it was dropping a cookie and incendiaries from 40,000 ft at 400MPH would mean they may fall on different cities, certainly different areas of a city. Also at 40,000ft, anything like a full moon would make the vapour trails almost as visible at night as they are by day. German fighters could find the bombers at times just from the turbulence of the bomber stream.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,020
- Jun 25, 2013
The fighters could have spotted them; they couldn't have caught them, and they certainly couldn't have gotten a second pass.
The XF-11 was being used as an example of the sort of performance that could be possible for a four-engine aircraft with technology of the era. Bombs are a high-density load, unlike passengers, so they would not dictate the fuselage design, which would be driven by fuel volume and the length needed to get adequate tail volume.
Germany had the 262 in service in 1944 it could catch any piston engine aircraft with ease, and loss rates on aircraft like the XF-12 and B-29 were not like B-17s and B-24, even the USA couldn't lose 4% of its B-29 per mission, 1% was about the maximum if that, they were very expensive to make and their crews needed a lot of training. The XF-12 was from a different era it was overtaken by the jet age and not put into production. Its ole was to overfly Japan, it flew first time after the war had ended.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,020
- Jun 25, 2013
Even jets would have trouble intercepting a high-performance piston bomber.
For reasons I have given they wouldn't have had so much trouble that it couldn't be done. The B-17 and B-24 only came into the frame as bombers in 1943/44 how can you think bombers performing better than a Mosquito recon aircraft would exist at the same time? There are many instances of German recon at high altitude stopping when one aircraft was successfully intercepted, not even shot down.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
