Hi Archimedes,
I suppose to some extent I am, but it was to assist my view that the post by rolling20 was incorrect in that the Lancaster was more prone to mid air break up. His source was Mr Wakelam's book, and with access to the book now I'm not at work; the full quote makes mention of mid air break ups in the same sentance as shot down aircraft;-
"The report also pointed out that the Lancaster, compared to the more strongly constructed Halifax, had a greater tendancy to break up in flight, and this in turn contributed to the fact that in 68 percent of the cases of Lancasters being shot down there were no survivors."
So my argument that we're not talking random structural failures (as implied by rolling20) as the cause of the loss stands. Note it also does not say "better built".
I still have slight issue with the statistics from the ORS as used by Mr Wakelam in that I feel that they are skewed, by the number of type of aircraft used on bombing operations. In most raids after 1943 there was often twice as many Lancasters operating as Halifax, despite total production numbers of the aircraft being similar. Later on there were raids that were exclusively comprised of Lancasters - so how can you generate a Halifax loss/survival percentage from that?
On reflection and reading back through the book I think I was a bit harsh, but I still think relying on what was believed at the time rather than what has been confirmed since, is not necessarily a good way to go about things.. as even now official statistics are heavily manipulated.
As with all things though, this is just me stating my opinion... so people are welcome to agree or disagree as they choose. I'll always back the Avro machine though over the Handley Page.
Kind regards,
Rich