Lancaster corkscrew manoeuvre over-rated?
The standard evasive manoeuvre by bomber command aircraft in WW2 to avoid fighter attacks was the corkscrew manaoevre. This consisted basically of a series of steep diving and climbing turns in alternate directions and was thought to make it difficult for a fighter to bring its fixed guns to bear.
Having flown Lincolns on fighter affiliation, I found the manoeuvre required a fair amount of strength on the controls and the dangerous part was when the controls were reversed at top and bottom part of the manoeuvre where for a few seconds the aircraft was a sitting duck.
I had the privilige a few years ago of listening to a talk by a well known highly decorated British Spitfire pilot involved in operations over Europe from 1942 onwards. He stated that the corkscrew manoeuvre used by RAF heavy bombers was generally ineffective against enemy fighters because of the lag that was apparent when the bomber was rolled through level flight on it's way to the steep reversal. His view being that it was easy to hit the bomber if you just waited until it passed through wings level. He said he could never understand why the manoeuvre was used in the first place and that bomber casualties could have been minimised if the corkscrew had never been adopted.
Obviously a bomber couldn't just sit there while being attacked so one wonders what other action it could do to give the enemy fighter a difficult shot. Comments appreciated.