B17 v Lanc bomb load

[blue up]

Just read an article saying that the Lanc could carry 22,000lb of bombs against a max of 8,000lb for the B17. Is this correct??? Seems quite a difference.

Thanks

[Archimedes]

The B-17 had a notably smaller bomb bay than the Lanc (impressive though the B-17's payload was at the time of its design) - although the 22,000lb figure is for the Grand Slam carrying Lancs rather than the standard maximum load (which was, IIRC, about 14,000lb).

[Evalu8ter]

Don't forget that the B-17 could carry an overload (including external racks under the wings) of 17 600lb. Don't think it was used much, if ever, operationally due to parasite drag & other performance issues, but it proved that the basic design could haul a significant bombload.
Remember that the B17 was originally designed to threaten the US Navy's role of protecting the US mainland from an enemy navy. Therefore range and endurance were more important than absolute bombload.

[evansb]

Yes, until the Boeing B-29 Superfortress entered service, Britain seemed to have a good handle on making true heavy bombers. The American built Consolidated B-24 bomber could carry 8,000-lbs, yet the HP Halifax could carry 13,000-lbs. The Short Stirling could carry 18,000-lbs. The B-24 and B-17 were, however, reasonably reliable, and available in quantity. The B-24 had good range and speed, but was more vulnerable to damage than the B-17.

The giant Douglas XB-19 would have dwarfed Britain's biggest bombers in shear size alone, had it entered overseas service. The XB-19 could carry 18,000-lbs. of bombs, and for short range missions, could carry in excess of 35,000-lbs of bombs. MTOW was 140,230-lbs.

[India Four Two]

What I think is more interesting is the B17/Mosquito comparison. Here's an example of an often quoted piece of Mosquito lore:
It was said that the 2 man twin engined Mosquito could carry the same bomb load to Berlin as the 4 engined Flying Fortress with its crew of 11. It also did it quicker and used less fuel.Can anyone confirm if this is true?

[Saab Dastard]

The Mosquito was certainly capable of carrying over 2000 lbs to Berlin.

The bomber variant was specifically tested with the 4000 lb "cookie", although a more usual bombload would have been 4 or 6 x 500 lb "short fin" bombs.

The range with 4000 lbs was approx. 1500 miles, so Berlin & back with 4000 lbs would have been possible, though perhaps not at high speed, and assuming a pretty direct flightpath.

It is possible that later variants with more powerful Merlins could have carried a greater load, but whether any actually did I'm not sure.

SD

[Load Toad]

There is an interesting comparison on Wiki here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_reported_B-17_%26_B-24_bomb_loads

Bomb load alone doesn't adequately explain what each aircraft type had to carry over what distance. The US Air Force was trying to use precision bombing during daylight and trying to defend their aircraft too and from the target. The RAF had decided night bombing was 'safer' and tended to bomb an area. Those two arguments themselves being gross over simplifications too.

[ICT_SLB]

I remember going around the Fort Lewis Museum in Washington State in the early 80s. On display was (if I recall the label correctly) "an experimental bomb dropped from a B-17 and found on the ranges" - it was, in fact, an intact Tall Boy so obviously jettisoned not dropped as intended from altitude - maybe too heavy for the aircraft? Wonder if it was intended for use against the Yamamoto?

[evansb]

India Four Two, Yes, in the dark, solo, below radar, (i.e. low-level), and carrying specialized electronic counter measures tuned for the day that were NOT available to the U.S. 8th Air Force en-mass, the Mosquito was, indeed, a formidable weapon. The RAF Bomber Command was also not privy to many of the counter-weapons specially tuned for the day. Logistics made it very difficult to build, test, and install a counter-measure system that would work in every aircraft of the European Theatre. Also, the Mosquito was of wooden construction, being inherently non-reflective of radar signals, and she had a relatively large avionics bay in relation to her size, in addition, she had a somewhat forgiving aerodynamic envelope that would accomodate a few changes to her foil. Most importantly, she was faster than most of her enemies.

Yes, Simon, if we only had 750,000 more Mosquitos, the war could have been over earlier. The forests would have been denuded, but, cest le guerre.

Let us not forget the de-laminating of the Mosquito's empenage in the tropics. It took a while to formulate a better adhesive to prevent the high speed delamination.

[henry crun]

evansb: It did not have to fly low level at night and carry specialized electronic counter measures to be formidable.

For quite a long time it was too fast at high level with a normal bomb load for the Germans to shoot it down at night.

[dakkg651]

I thought the reason the B17 carried such a small bombload was because they didn't need much to destroy a German pickle barrel.

[Gainesy]

ICT SLB,
The USAAF took some Tallboys after the war and modded them with radio guidance, I think the project was called Tarzan, so maybe you saw one left over from that programme?

[forget]

Below from Bill Sweetman’s ‘Mosquito’.

(How many Mosquitos would it take to equal a long range 1,000 Bomber Raid with Lancs?)

---------------------------------

It has been argued that Bomber Command could have done far more damage to Germany, with far less loss of life among its own crews and far less wastage of wartime production capacity, had it embraced the concept of the fast unarmed bomber earlier. Certainly, the Command’s post-war policy reflected this experience, with its jet bombers being designed around advanced H2S and electronic countermeasures and relying on speed and altitude for defence.

It takes fairly simple arithmetic to calculate that the Mosquito in its ultimate form could deliver more weapons over the same distance than the typical heavy bomber, when the two aircraft were compared on the basis of crew man-hours, total engine hours and fuel consumption; also, that the average Mosquito could be expected to deliver far more bombs during its far longer life expectancy, and its crew could expect to survive a far longer tour of operations. The only serious weakness of this argument is that the relative invulnerability of the Mosquito was itself indirectly brought about by Bomber Command’s own policies. Because the RAF concentrated on producing the four-engined heavy bombers, the Luftwaffe’s main task was to destroy these; Germany’s aircraft-production chief Erhard Mitch accordingly opposed production of the Heinkel He 219 night-fighter, which was faster than the Mosquito, in favour of the slower Ju 88G, which was adequate to deal with the heavy bombers and could be built more cheaply than the He 219. The practical difficulties of a shift to the unarmed bomber philosophy would have been enormous at any stage (including the need to train crews to the high standards demanded for the Mosquito) and would have given the Luftwaffe time to re-equip with the He 219, undoubtedly increasing Mosquito losses.

The final Mosquito bomber version was the B.35, basically similar to the B.XVI but powered by the high-altitude-rated Merlin 114. It remained in front-line service with the RAF until 1953, when the English Electric Canberra replaced it. Even the B.35, however, was restricted to operational weights and loadings in peacetime which were well below those of wartime B.XVIs; the “war emergency” weights at which the B.XVI operated were 4,000 lb (1,815 kg) higher than the peacetime weights, which limited the Mosquito’s bomb-load to 1,500 lb (680 kg). These restrictions could, of course, be lifted in wartime, and were an excellent indication of the abuse which the Mosquito would put up with in the hands of a skilled and dedicated crew.

[teeteringhead]

It was certainly the received wisdom at the time. I can recall in my youth aged, well-oiled cockney relatives bursting into wartime songs at family functions.

One I remember was to the tune of battle Hymn of the Republic (Glory glory allelluila (sp?)). Two of the verses were:

"The Yanks were flying Fortresses at forty fousand feet (x3)
With loads of ammunition and a teeny-weeny bomb"

followed rapidly by:

"The RAF were flying Lancasters at zero-zero feet (x3)
With no ammunition and a :mad: great bomb!" ;)

[Dan Winterland]

Typical war loads for the B17 were closer to 4000lbs.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Actually...

We're flying Flying Fortresses at forty thousand feet
We're flying over Germany to give the Huns a treat
We've bags and bags of ammo and a teeny-weeny bomb
And we drop the bastard from so high we don't know where it's gone

[India Four Two]

For quite a long time it was too fast at high level with a normal bomb load for the Germans to shoot it down at night.And with the introduction of Oboe, single aircraft raids could have devastating accuracy.

http://www.radarpages.co.uk/mob/navaids/oboe/oboe1.htm

[Chris Royle]

The Mosquito was certainly a wonderful aircraft, but don't forget that the single engine performance was not good, especially after take off. Single engine safety speed was in the order of 190 mph, with lift off at bout 130 mph. It took a long time to retract the undercarriage and clean the aircraft up. A lot of aircrew were lost in this way. It could bite very hard.
Read Neil William's account of dealing with an engine failure after tale off at Booker in "Airborne" and Don McVicar's book "North Atlantic Cat", the latter telling the story of ferrying (inter alia) Canadian built Mosquitos to Europe.

[Dan Winterland]

My Granfather 'acquired' a Mosquito due to engine failure. He had a farm in Norfolk and one night in 1944 (I think) an aircraft crashed nearby. My mother remembers hearing an aircraft crash that night, but as there was a German raid on Kings Lynn docks at the time, the assumed it was a German bomber as it sounded quiet and the thought it was a long way away. The next morning, it was confirmed a German aircraft had been shot down and had crashed on a nearby farm.

However, in 1975, my Grandfather decided to drain a patch of Fen which had never been touched which was only half a mile from the farmhouse. As the water level dropped, a propeller blade appeared out of the fen, so he called the RAF historical branch. It turned out to be a Mosquito which had taken off from Great Massingham (I think) on a raid to Germany. The wreckage showed that it had suffered an engine failure and the crew obviously couldn't found it hard to manage as they had crashed soon after takeoff. It had been listed as 'Missing in Action' so it was not known where it had come down and it probably wasn't suspected that it had crashed so close to home. The left side of the wreckage was almost intact, and having being submerged in peaty water which has very little oxygen in it, had suffered very little deeriation. The right side however, had taken the impact and was badly damaged. The wreck was complete with crew and armament and gave the RAF bomb disposal crew some problems dealing with the bombs due to their being parly submerged in a bog.

The left wing looked almost perfect. I remember the red of the roundel being almost as brilliant as if it had just been painted. The engine was in good condition and I gather it was restored to running condition. The tyre in that nacelle looked perfect and was still up to it's original pressure and the left nav light worked when a battery was connected. Some parts went to BAe to keep their flying example airworthy.

I had some parts to the aircraft for many years, but gave them to a friend who had a small aircraft museum.

[ICT_SLB]

Gainsey,

IIRC, the bomb had the typical fixed offset fins that provide the spin stabilisation still in place and, as far as I can remember, no external mods (relative the versions on the side of the Clubhouse at Brooklands or, when I saw them, BAe Weybridge). Didn't the USAF remote control bombs have large box fins a la Fat Man?

[Blacksheep]

...and its crew could expect to survive a far longer tour of operations. Tell that to Guy Gibson's Ghost... :hmm:

[blue up]

I flew a pair of ARV Super-2's to Oshkosh in 198? and met a 'local' who told me that he had travelled the length on breadth of the UK in an Aston Martin down unmade roads in the 1950's with Guy Gibson. I hadn't the heart to tell him.....
Anyhow, have a listen to the glorious sound of ....
http://www.mossie.org/sounds/mosquito_flypast.mp3
(PS Max volume in stereo is recommended)

[treadigraph]

Nice one Blue up! Took you at your word, not sure if my neighbours will ever talk to me again. Not that I'll be able to hear them...

Loved the stereo on the exhaust crackle.:ok:

[Kitbag]

Evansb said: 'Also, the Mosquito was of wooden construction, being inherently non-reflective of radar signals'
This is not strictly true, one could expect something wooden to have a low RCS, however, being effectively transparent to radar just meant that all those lovely metal reflectors under the skin (engines, fuel pumps, bomb fins, avionic boxes etc) were all now exposed and creating re-entrant structures, not to mention the two biggest sets reflectors on any propellor driven aircraft so, all in all, the Mosquito was not quite as stealthy as one might expect.
Still a damn handsome piece of kit though:ok:

[rolling20]

Im appalled at the lack of knowledge on here...surely every schoolboy knows the Lanc was a better hauler of explosives than the B-17?! Albeit that the Lanc was purely designed for just that purpose (bigger bomb bay) and didnt carry as much armament and had less crew as a result. A typical load to Berlin would be a mixture of HE and incendiaries, usually a 4,000lb er and several 1,000lb bombs, roughly 10-14,000lb depending on fuel load.

Further the Mosquito regularly flew missions to Berlin carrying a 4,000LB Cookie, which could be fitted in by modifying the bomb doors. They often flew relays of missions to Berlin, landing back home and taking off again the same night! They even bombed Berlin on Hitlers birthday in 1943 in daylight!

The reason that more Mosquitos were not produced were two-fold. Firstly they were of wooden construction and most of this production was dispersed around the UK in small workshops etc, before coming to a final assembly plant.
Britan did not possess enough skilled workers for this job and thus numbers were limited. Secondly,Britains war effort was 'geared' to heavy bomber production and it would have been far too difficult to change that programme
once it was in full swing. There were even problems trying to resolve the Halifax Mk 1 stall problem. Handley Page refused intially to change the rudder design as it would interfere with production!

Im not sure who it was, possibly RV Jones or Tizard who computed that a Heavy Bomber without turrets and extra crew members could have had an increase of 50mph to its speed. That would give the Lanc an estimated max speed of 335-340mph, which would have been more that adequate to see off the twin engined nightfighters of the day, plus it would have given them an advantage of being more manouverable.

The B17 also fought by day as a precision bomber and thus in theory didnt need as big a load, whereas Bomber Command was a creature of the night, having been mauled in December 1939 in daylight, and the policy was one of 'Area Bombing'.

I have often wondered if the Heavies had not carried so much weight with them and were pure haulers of explosives, what effect that would have had on the 'night bombing' of Germany ( as awful now, with hindsight, that policy was) Surviving crews often told of Bombers lightening themselves before they got to Germany to gain altitude.

Im sure we all have nothing but admiration for their courage in carrying out a task that will never thankfully occur again.

[45-Shooter]

Many people fail to understand the great number of variables involved. The altitude required was a big one, range, including all course changes etc...
The facts are;
1. The Lanc bomb bay was long, narrow and low. It could carry 12 conventional 1,000 pound bombs. After some time in service, after the RAF chose to do night ops, it was modified to carry 14 - 1,000 pounders with short fins. Then later it was again modified to carry heavier bombs. The 4,000 pound "cookie" as it was known was designed just for this application as the standard 4,000 LC/HC bomb would not fit WO new bomb bay doors. The bay was sized to carry the 4,000 MC bomb which because of the thicker case was smaller in diameter. All other bombs were carried by specially modified planes WO bomb bay doors. The normal maximum bomb load of NON SPECIAL Lancs was 14,000 pounds.
2. The Lancaster's AVERAGE bomb load during the entire war was just under 8,000 pounds! See; The "Lanc", as it was affectionately known,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancaster_bomber#cite_note-1) thus became the most famous and most successful of the Second World War night bombers, "delivering 608,612 tons of bombs in 156,000 sorties." @ Avro Lancaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancaster_bomber)
((608612*2000=1217224000)/156000=7802 pounds/mission)
Many Lancs had most of their deffensive guns and armor removed to improve aerodynamic performance.
3. The average altitude of Lanc missions was <19,000! This contributed greatly to the AVERAGE weight of bombs it could carry to any given target range. With very heavy loads at relatively long range, bombing altitude was less than 13,000'! At night it did not matter much. But in broad day light, such altitudes were suicide! Since the Lanc's service ceiling was under 25,000', if it HAD BEEN REQUIRED to fly much higher than 19,000' during day light, like B-17s and B-24s at 25,000', to avoid optically directed flak, the bomb load to any given range would have been about half of what it was! MUCH LESS THAN HALF! If missions had been required at 30,000' fuel would have had to have been off loaded to make the plane light enough to get to altitude and both bomb load and range would have been REDUCED TO ONE QUARTER of what it was statistically.
4. The cause of number 3 above was the supercharger systems of the various Lancaster's engine types. There were half a dozen major variants! ( Not counting the Bristol engined types!) Compared to the Turbo-supercharger + supercharger system on both the B-17 and B-24, it was hopelessly under powered and in-efficient at high altitude!
5. The B-17 bomb bay was short, equally wide - twice and tall. It too could carry the 4,000 pound MC bomb internally. Four of them, two on either side. ( Bomb about 3,800 pounds actual, or load <16,000 pounds.) Or it could carry eight 2,000 pounder MC bombs, four on either side. ( >16,000 pounds.), But to get to 17,600 pounds that you see in all the reference books, it had to load eleven 1,600 pound Armor Piercing bombs inside the two bays for 17,600 pounds of bombs. This was facilitated by the four bomb racks that were as tall as the entire depth of the fuselage. The same racks were doubled in the B-24, with four racks in each of the two bomb bays. These four racks could in theory, carry 38 individual 250 pound MC Bombs, or 34, 440 pound Incendiary cluster bombs! ( Because the Lanc only had 12 or 14 shackles, it could only carry 12, or 14 bombs, hence the British preference for larger bombs.) Total bomb load was reduced to meet range and altitude requirements!
6. Statistically, more smaller bombs are better at destroying most targets. The blast over pressure is a CUBE ROOT function, so that a bomb eight times as heavy is required to do twice as much damage. Also, more bombs mean more chances to have a direct hit which is infinitely preferable to a miss! Bomb fragment size and range is equal for all MC bombs because the fragments loose velocity so quickly.
7. Because the American Missions were required to fly between 25-30K' to avoid flak, their bomb loads were much less on average than those of the Lancaster. So it was tactics that determined the relative weight of bombs they would carry on average during the war, not aircraft performance!
8. The B-17 was superior to the Lancaster in construction technology, engine installation and aerodynamic performance! The B-24 was superior to the B-17 aerodynamically, but not structurally. You pays your money and takes your choice!

[45-Shooter]

B-17s dropped about 32,000 more tons of bombs than Lancasters durring the war, while flying for fewer months of service. Their availibility rate was some multiple of the Lancs and they flew more long missions as a fraction of their total, to boot.

[Load Toad]

Where is your source for that info?

[ZH875]

Considering that there were some 12,731 B17s and 7377 Lancaster built, and that the B17 first flew in 1935 compared to the Lancs first flight in 1941, the B17 had many more years to get it operating correctly.

The B17 entered service in April 1938, before the war had begun The Lancaster entered service in Feb 42, not long after America joined in.

B17's dropped 640,000 tons compared to the Lancasters 608,612 tons, an average of 50 tons per B17 and 82.5 tons per Lancaster.

[Richard Woods]

45 Shooter,

To addresss your points....

1. Complete info on Lancaster bomb bay size, and loads can be found here:

Bomb Loads (http://www.lancaster-archive.com/lanc_bomb_loads.htm)

I'd be interested to see what you can come up with for the B-17 in terms of loads carried and versatility. The 8000lb bomb was the one that prompted Lancaster bomb door modification, to the interior profile. Bulged doors came later.

2. Averages... why? We know every aircraft theoretically could carry max bombload, but in reality it is dictated by target and task. An average of the tonnage dropped doesn't really mean much, especially when you think that there were significantly more B17s built than Lancasters. At peak there were 4000 B17's on USAAF inventory during 1944, which is more than total Lancaster losses for the war. The maths also doesn't work unless you can verify that every one of those 156,000 sorties was a bombing one.

Regarding armour and removal - the Lancaster's armour was minimal to start with, with the pilots seat having pretty much the only armour plate. Similarly, very few Lancasters had their armaments removed, this being something done to the 'special' aircraft or occasionally the Pathfinders.

3. You're using averages again. Some missions, (Augsburg, Dams raid) were done at significantly less than the service ceiling of the Lancaster - which is listed at 24,500 feet. To get that ceiling and retain its range it would have likely been required to carry about half the load, putting it in B17 territory.

Or maybe not - seeing as the Lanc could carry the 22,000lb 'Grand Slam' up to 15,000 feet to a range of 1500 miles. The standard B17's range on a normal maximum bombload of 11,000lbs is quoted as 1100 miles...

The Tirpitz missions required an excessive range and bombload from the Lancaster, in order to get to Tromso, Norway and back. The RAF did the unthinkable, and removed the mid-upper turrets of the aircraft, and installed overload fuel tanks in the fuselage. There was no protection afforded by flying at night either as the raids were conducted in daylight.

4. Suggest further research for you into the P51 Mustang and its engine. Also look to the Merlin's use in the high altitude PR versions of Mosquito and Spitfire aircraft and the engine's post war use in the Avro Lancastrian, and particularly the Canadair North Star. The North Star's ceiling was 36,000feet. Inefficient, you say?

5. Refer to the bomb loading diagram link above. Just because there are 14 positions for standard carriers doesn't mean that is all you can fit in the bomb bay.

The 17,600lb you refer to the B17 carrying can't be done internally, it is carried off external underwing racks. I wonder how that stacks up against the normal short range of 1100 miles? Not good I'll bet.

I'm not going to bother with the B-24 as its theoretical maximum bomb load was 12,800 lb.

6. Precision bombing vs area. However the RAF (Lancaster..) attacks on submarine pens, tunnels, viaducts, and capital ships suggest that sometimes its not all about how many you can get on target.

7. Agreed. Range, Payload, Altitude. You can't have them all. However, some are better than others. ;)

8. The basic airframe design originated as the Manchester in 1939 and was designed to be strong enough to be catapult launched. The bomb bay was strong enough to hold 22,000lbs, comfortably.

The basic wing design in itself served in:

Avro Manchester
Avro Lancaster (extended by respacing wing ribs)
Avro York
Avro Lancastrian
Avro Lincoln - (extended from wingtip joint hereon)
Avro Tudor
Avro Ashton
AWA Argosy
Avro Shackleton

From 25 July 1939, to 07 July 1991 in RAF service. And before anybody says that there really isn't that much Lancaster by the time you get to the Shackleton, the drawings do say otherwise.

I'm intrigued to know how a neat engine installation that was a self contained 'power egg' is less superior to a setup that has various parts of its supercharger and oil cooler systems buried inside the wings.


Regards,

Rich

[Brewster Buffalo]

Statistically, more smaller bombs are better at destroying most targets.The post war US Strategic Bombing Survey came to the conclusion that."..the small bombs carried by the B-17s and B-24s might destroy a factory but not the precious machine tools within" So you may have got more hits with a greater number of small bombs but caused less damage..

[45-Shooter]

From Wiki;

Of the 1.5 million tons of bombs dropped on Germany by U.S. aircraft, 640,000 tons were dropped from B-17s.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-17_Flying_Fortress#cite_note-Yenne.p46-8)

On 30 May 1942, between 0047 and 0225 hours, in Operation Millennium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Millennium) 1,046 bombers dropped over 2,000 tons of high explosive and incendiaries on the medieval town of Cologne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cologne), and the resulting fires burned it from end to end. The devastation was nearly total. The fires could be seen 600 miles away at an altitude of 20,000 feet. Some 3,300 houses were destroyed, and 10,000 were damaged. 12,000 separate fires raged destroying 36 factories, damaging 270 more, and leaving 45,000 people with nowhere to live or to work. Only 384 civilians and 85 soldiers were killed, but thousands evacuated the city. Bomber Command lost 40 bombers.

From the USAAF Strategic Bombing Survey, by way of Ray Wagner on page 133, table 7;
B-17 MISSIONS = 291,508, BOMBS DROPPED = 640,036 TONS.
That is 4,391 pounds per mission, or about 56% per mission of the Lancaster's average!

[45-Shooter]

But it fails to tell the entire story. The B-17 did not serve in Europe in numbers until long after the Lanc. ( First flight in Jan-'41, Service in Oct-41, 1st mass mission in Dec-41) (1st combat ready B-17E in Sept-41, 1st large mission in May-42.) At the introduction of the first full B-17E in to squadron service, there were almost two thousand Lancs delivered for service. The first B-17 variant in numbers like the Lancaster had in 1942 was the B-17F, only 3,400 built. By May 1943, the B-17G, the definitive version started to see squadron service in late 1943.
Finally, because B-17s were also kept in the states, sent to the PTO and North Africa, there were never quite as many B-17s in England as Lancasters'. More Lancs for more months equals fewer missions because of serviceability issues.

[Load Toad]

With all that how do you explain they dropped soooo many bombs!

Nb. As if dropping numbers of bombs alone was the whole story anyway.

[45-Shooter]

Counter arguments
45 Shooter,

To addresss your points....

1. Complete info on Lancaster bomb bay size, and loads can be found here:

Bomb Loads (http://www.lancaster-archive.com/lanc_bomb_loads.htm)
This web site does not show that the bomb bay was only 34" deep in the center and that the out side shakles could not carry any 4000 pound bomb. Note also that there were four types of 4000 pounders. The first two were so called medium case variety and less than 35" OD. The third was the first gen LC bomb and it would not fit in the Lanc's bay because it was 38" OD and shorter than the fourth version which was longer but only 34" OD. This last "Cookie" is the bomb in all the hubub is about!
I'd be interested to see what you can come up with for the B-17 in terms of loads carried and versatility. The 8000lb bomb was the one that prompted Lancaster bomb door modification, to the interior profile. Bulged doors came later.
There were also two different types of 8,000 pounders. The American version was a standard cast steel MC version and was about the same diameter as the Tallboy. It did not fit in any Lanc, except the 30-33 "Specials"! The 8,000 pounder used by the Lanc was TWO 4000 pound Cookies bolted together. It AND the 12,000 pound triple cookie fit in the Lancaster WO Bulged doors. The Bulged doors were for the American "Medium Case" bomb. The Brits let A.O. Smith cast them because there was no un-used capacity in the UK.


2. Averages... why? We know every aircraft theoretically could carry max bombload, but in reality it is dictated by target and task. An average of the tonnage dropped doesn't really mean much, especially when you think that there were significantly more B17s built than Lancasters. At peak there were 4000 B17's on USAAF inventory during 1944, which is more than total Lancaster losses for the war. The maths also doesn't work unless you can verify that every one of those 156,000 sorties was a bombing one.

Except that those 4,000 planes were scattered over four theaters. The averages are important because they highlight the availibility differances.

Regarding armour and removal - the Lancaster's armour was minimal to start with, with the pilots seat having pretty much the only armour plate. Similarly, very few Lancasters had their armaments removed, this being something done to the 'special' aircraft or occasionally the Pathfinders.

Wrong again; The tail gunner had both seat armor and BP Glass and shield, the pilot, co-pilot and bombardier also had BP Glass. The tanks were fitted with SS bags and the engines had RC plates over the oil tank and gear case. All in all, just over half a tonne total. Almost all Lancasters had the lower ventral gun poss removed, most had the top turret removed along with it's armor glass starting when they chose to go to night bombing. The average Lanc had 800 pounds of armor removed.

3. You're using averages again. Some missions, (Augsburg, Dams raid) were done at significantly less than the service ceiling of the Lancaster - which is listed at 24,500 feet. To get that ceiling and retain its range it would have likely been required to carry about half the load, putting it in B17 territory.

I pointed this out in my original post! IF they had been required to bomb in day light, at 24,000' the bomb load and range would be greatly reduced! To less than half of the AVERAGE!

Or maybe not - seeing as the Lanc could carry the 22,000lb 'Grand Slam' up to 15,000 feet to a range of 1500 miles. The standard B17's range on a normal maximum bombload of 11,000lbs is quoted as 1100 miles...

The Tirpitz missions required an excessive range and bombload from the Lancaster, in order to get to Tromso, Norway and back. The RAF did the unthinkable, and removed the mid-upper turrets of the aircraft, and installed overload fuel tanks in the fuselage. There was no protection afforded by flying at night either as the raids were conducted in daylight.

And we should judge the 8,000 by what thw 33 did? Right!

4. Suggest further research for you into the P51 Mustang and its engine. Also look to the Merlin's use in the high altitude PR versions of Mosquito and Spitfire aircraft and the engine's post war use in the Avro Lancastrian, and particularly the Canadair North Star. The North Star's ceiling was 36,000feet. Inefficient, you say?

And which version of the Lancaster used the equivilant two stage, large wheel Merlin engine? See Wiki;

Merlin XX (RM 3SM)
1,480 hp (1,105 kW) at 3,000 rpm at 6,000 ft (1,830 m); two-speed supercharger; boost pressure of up to +14 psi; Used in Hurricane Mk.II, Beaufighter Mk.II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Beaufighter), s, Halifax Mk.II and Lancaster Mk.I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster) bombers, and in the Spitfire Mk.III prototypes (N3297 & W3237) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire_(early_Merlin_powered_variants)#Mk_III_ .28Type_330.29).[77] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Merlin#cite_note-88) First production Merlin XX, 4 July 1940.[18][nb 13] V-1650-1: 1,390 hp (1,040 kW); Based on Merlin 28, used in the LancasterNote that both of these engines are two speed single blower engines!

5. Refer to the bomb loading diagram link above. Just because there are 14 positions for standard carriers doesn't mean that is all you can fit in the bomb bay.

There are 15 possitions, only 14 of which are usable at any one time. But that is only later versions, because the early types only had 12 shakels and could not cary any 4000 pound bomb with the doors on at that time!

The 17,600lb you refer to the B17 carrying can't be done internally, it is carried off external underwing racks. I wonder how that stacks up against the normal short range of 1100 miles? Not good I'll bet.

Again you are mistaken, as eleven 1,600 pound armor piercing bombs fit entirely inside the bay with the doors closed. They are not nearly as large in diamiter as a 1,000 pound GP bomb. Can you list the external load that yealds the 17,600 pounds mentioned?

I'm not going to bother with the B-24 as its theoretical maximum bomb load was 12,800 lb.

This is limited by weight and balance considerations, not load. If they wanted, it could load and fly with almost 16,000 pounds up, in the form of 4X4,000 pound GP bombs.

6. Precision bombing vs area. However the RAF (Lancaster..) attacks on submarine pens, tunnels, viaducts, and capital ships suggest that sometimes its not all about how many you can get on target.

If you discount all the day light missions, then the RAF states that less than 50% of the bombs landed inside the city limits. All bombs that landed out side the city were zero effectiveness. When the Americans claimed that 2% of bombs hit the targets, the other 98% still hit the city, so the AVERAGE EFFECTIVENESS was twice that of the Lanc?

7. Agreed. Range, Payload, Altitude. You can't have them all. However, some are better than others. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif
You are so very right about this!

8. The basic airframe design originated as the Manchester in 1939 and was designed to be strong enough to be catapult launched. The bomb bay was strong enough to hold 22,000lbs, comfortably.

No! The fuse required significant re-enforcement before it could cary the 12,000 pound tallboy, Up Keep bouncing bomb AND significantly more re-enforcement to carry the Grand Slam.

I'm intrigued to know how a neat engine installation that was a self contained 'power egg' is less superior to a setup that has various parts of its supercharger and oil cooler systems buried inside the wings.

The Lanc's engines were single stage, two speed blowered, WO Turbo-charger! While it was simple, there is no way to compaire it to the Supercharged with turbo-blower used in the American planes.

Regards,

Stewart.

[45-Shooter]

Quote:
Statistically, more smaller bombs are better at destroying most targets.
The post war US Strategic Bombing Survey came to the conclusion that."..the small bombs carried by the B-17s and B-24s might destroy a factory but not the precious machine tools within" So you may have got more hits with a greater number of small bombs but caused less damage..

The above quote is taken out of context. If you read the entire volume, out of ~208 in the entire SB Survey, IIRC, it states "that in general, the smaller bomb must land much closer to the target to destroy it." The source of the above quote.
But if you read the rest of the PP, it states that hitting the factory with 25-100 each 500 pound bombs would destroy more equipment than the 2-3 hits that result from dropping larger bombs from many more aircraft dispersed over a much larger chunk of sky. Further more "The best results were achieved by dropping the most large bombs from the fewest B-29s that can fit over the target zone."

[longer ron]

most had the top turret removed along with it's armor glass starting when they chose to go to night bombing.

I don't know where you got that info from but I suggest that you look at the hundreds of pictures of main force Lancs which indeed did have the mid upper fitted.
The Lanc was not subject to much weight related modification when in service.
The merlin engined Halifax was the a/c which was stripped out to get bombing altitude.
So to recap...the main force Lancs had the mid upper as standard...the mid upper was only removed for certain specific squadrons/tasks

I would also suggest that using Wiki as a primary source is unwise on an aviation forum,it is full of erm 'inaccuracies'

rgds LR

[longer ron]

Wrong again; The tail gunner had both seat armor and BP Glass and shield, the pilot, co-pilot and bombardier also had BP Glass. The tanks were fitted with SS bags and the engines had RC plates over the oil tank and gear case. All in all, just over half a tonne total. Almost all Lancasters had the lower ventral gun poss removed, most had the top turret removed along with it's armor glass starting when they chose to go to night bombing. The average Lanc had 800 pounds of armor removed.

This is the complete paragraph which I quoted from in my previous post...

Re the tail gunners turret...many of the experienced tail gunners removed large areas of turret glazing,but this was not weight saving !It was to cut down on reflections etc and thereby improving night vision.

rgds LR

[45-Shooter]

Hundreds of pics out of thousands built? according to the RAF's web site, "Most Lancasters had the Mid-upper turret and most other weapons removed for night bombing. Many going with only the tail gunner to keep watch for night fighters"
A tonne of guns, armor and ammo removed, plus the surface area, form drag and induced drag related to it, all gone. What kind of contribution do you think it made to total performance.
Finally, the Americans and Brits figured range by two vastly different systems. The Americans figured 40-45% of range to bomb drop, including all the course changes. The Brits printed the total range WO stating that the bombs were dropped at some point less than half that distance to the target.

[45-Shooter]

The RAF states that most Lancs carried only the tail gunner on night missions. Why would they leave with unmanned, but installed weapons?

[longer ron]

45 shooter
I suggest you do a little serious research,it will take you 10 minutes of googling to get the info about mid upper turrets.
The standard Lanc had a mid upper turret!generally speaking the MU turret was only removed from the Lancs with 'special' as suffix to mark number.
The Lanc was a v good load lifter,any weight reduction was done by chadwick just prior to service testing to ensure the production contract,the Lanc performance was very satisfactory to the RAF,I agree that it would have benefited from weight/drag reduction but I can assure you that it was not carried out on main force a/c...the crews were happy flying Lancs.
The merlin engined Halifax and the Short Stirling were the a/c with performance problems,and the Halifax 'special' was severely stripped to gain bombing altitude.

rgds LR

[45-Shooter]

http://www.secondworldwar.org.uk/aircraft/lanc9.jpg
It takes time to search though books. Will continue. PS, did you know about the losses from Schlang muzak because the bottom ball turret was removed for night bombing?

[45-Shooter]

Avro Lancaster Bomber Characteristics

ArmamentTen .303-inch Browning trainable forward-firing machine guns (2 in nose, 2 ventral, and 2 dorsal turrets; 4 in tail turret)CrewSevenNormal bomb load12,000 lbs.; up to 14,000 lbs. on some missionsEnginesFour Packard (Rolls-Royce) Merlin Vee piston engines of 1,460 hp eachMaximum speed275 mph at 15,000 ft.Cruising speed227 mphRange2,530 miles with 7,000 lb. bombloadCeiling24,500 ft.Wing Span102 ft.Length69 ft. 6 in.Height19 ft. 7 in. (with tail down)Weight36,900 lbs. empty; 41,000 equipped; 68,000 lbs. loaded and fueled
Note: Characteristics vary slightly with the Lancaster Mark variant, manufacturing site, and date.

[longer ron]

Just by googling 'Avro Lancaster variants' gets you...

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=avro%20lancaster%20%20%20variants&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEkQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sonsofdamien.co.uk%2FLancaster-Lincoln%25201.htm&ei=IOdaT96TJoOl0AXQq5zCBQ&usg=AFQjCNHzg4_J9mnhKZsqCug4n8U5WwYibg

Not definitive I know but looks about right!

I dont know which 'RAF' website you have been looking at but it is not the one I have seen :ok:

Re the ventral turret...yes not the RAF finest intelligence hour vis a vis Schrage musik but as the above link says...some crews did carry a ventral 'scare gun'
I believe the ventral turret was removed because it was 'not very good'

[longer ron]

Re ventral guns

A Preston-Green mount was available for a .50 cal mounted in a ventral blister, but this was mostly used in RCAF service. Some unofficial mounts for .50 cal or even 20 mm guns were made, firing through ventral holes of various designs.

The canadians seemed keen on ventral guns...as some RAF crews also were

[45-Shooter]

I find it interesting that near the bottom of the page you linked to, there is a Lanc wo top or bottom turret. My point is not that ALL Lancs had the turrets removed, just that many of them did. Many planes that were used exclusivly for night raids had three of the four turrets removed. These were not specials, just normal bombers used day in and day out.
Some place I read in a flight manual that the best deffense was a desending corkscrew maneuver to loose the attacker at night! (Because there was only the one turret in the tail!)

[innuendo]

I would also suggest that using Wiki as a primary source is unwise on an aviation forum,it is full of erm 'inaccuracies'

Such as,

The fires could be seen 600 miles away at an altitude of 20,000 feet.

I find that very difficult to believe.

Reason being that I can remember being over North Bay, Ontario, at 45,000 feet on a crystal clear winter night, (in a CF-100), and being able to see Ottawa, Toronto and the lights of Montreal as a glow on the horizon, it was pretty spectacular and still remains in my memory as it did not happen too often. By way of interest, New York and Boston would be 422 and 434 nautical respectively and I can tell you that they were certainly not visible. 600 miles visibility from 20,000 feet, even if it is from fires seems a bit of a stretch.

[45-Shooter]

It's about what you think makes the best fighter plane.

[longer ron]

45 shooter
My point is not that ALL Lancs had the turrets removed, just that many of them did. Many planes that were used exclusivly for night raids had three of the four turrets removed.

My point is that you are mistaken :)
ALL Main night force standard Lancs had nose + tail + mid upper turrets fitted and manned at all times on ops.
The ventral turret was never fitted to many a/c and soon deleted,replaced by the H2s radar,the ventral gun was difficult to aim in daylight so useless for night ops.
Only a very small proportion of Lancs were designed/modified to have less turrets...it explained the basic marks in the link I posted earlier!

The 'naked' lanc you refer to is a Dambuster 'Special' - ie one of the very few a/c not to have all turrets fitted (didnt have any bomb doors either )

[45-Shooter]

20k' = 174 miles, 40k' smoke cloud = 246 miles. 600 miles? I think you are right, seems a bit much, but I wonder where they got the quote from? Wiki is one of those places that ends up re-posting the same BS that is from the original source. I wish I knew what that was!

[45-Shooter]

There are three or four "Naked" Lancs, only two or three of which are "Specials"! Also the picture I posted was certainly not a "Special"! Note that both the picture you linked to and the one I posted were not specials, but did not have either ventral or upper turrets!
Were you able to find the source of the "Decending corkscrew maneuver" as it relates to unarmed Lancs at night?

[longer ron]

Lancaster production by mark

3 prototypes
3,434 B.Mk I.....3 turrets
300 B.Mk II....3 turrets
3,030 B.Mk III...3 turrets
180 B.Mk IV...renamed Lincoln
430 B.Mk X...3 turrets
32 B.Mk I Specials (Converted) Tallboy/grand Slam,usually with tail turret only
23 B.Mk III Specials (Converted) Dambusters - no MU turret

There were probably a few other non standard Lancs,but the great majority of Wartime Lancs had 3 turrets.

So approx 7000 a/c with 3 turrets and approx 60 a/c with some removed.

rgds LR

[longer ron]

The picture you posted is post war :)

I am specifically talking about wartime a/c

Please do some reading from reputable sources...the 'corkscrew' was the standard Bomber Command evasive manoever,either the Mid Upper or the Tail Gunner would tell the pilot to ''corkscrew port'' or ''corkscrew stbd''

[Load Toad]

45-Shooter uses Wiki for everything, ignores any information he doesn't like & draws sweeping conclusions from photographs & information that he likes and / or supports his views.

So it ain't much point debating.

[longer ron]

Hi LT...I know...and the strange thing is that wiki does have quite good info on the Lanc marks,I guess it is just a case of reading it !!

rgds LR

[Richard Woods]

45 shooter (Stewart),

First off, do yourself a favour and ditch Wikipedia, as pretty much anybody can edit it. Next get yourself a copy of the Lancaster drawings (internet or ask the people at Avro Heritage nicely), and get a few decent books on the aircraft. I can recommend those by Francis K Mason, Bruce Robertson, and Harry Holmes as excellent reading.

Referring again to your previous post -

1. You missed the point entirely regarding bombloads. Your statement "All other bombs were carried by specially modified planes WO bomb bay doors." is incorrect, and the link I posted to shows this. I'm not debating where the individual shackles are in the Lancaster or the B17, just the variance of load each can carry.

2. The availablility difference is my point, which again you missed.. The fact that the B17 was available in higher numbers at any one time means of course the type is going to drop more tonnage. This is why your average is meaningless. Compare the number of wartime operational Lancs (not the postwar or late batches of Canadian aircraft that never made it over here) to a similar number of B17's if you want a like for like comparison of load carried with any accuracy. Match numbers of aircraft over a matched period of time.

In regards to armour, the original FN20 rear turret had some 9mm armour plate, but no bullet proof glass. The glazing was perspex the same as for the mid upper turret. I've not seen any evidence of seat armour in the rear turret as the seat was little more than a small foam pad. You're right in that the fuel tanks were self sealing, but the oil tanks being armoured?

3. Please provide the figures you have from the pilots notes, or from the manufacturer maybe, that show operating the Lancaster at its service ceiling would cut the payload by more than half. The statement you make on this is your opinion, and nothing more.

What isn't opinion is that a standard Lancaster could and did carry a substantial payload over an excessively long range - the 9 Sqn and 617 Sqn aircraft that attacked the Tirpitz weren't the 'Special' aircraft. This is not opinion, and regardless of number of aircraft used it was done operationally; so we can take this as a measure of what a a fairly standard aircraft is capable of.

4. Engines -

Lancaster BVI Merlin 85 1635hp

Two speed, two stage. Later used in the Lancaster IV, also known as the Lincoln. Do I really have to do all your homework for you just because wikipedia is lacking?

5. There are more than 15 points, depending on which carriers are fitted. Please show me the 12 point version of a Lanc bomb bay, as I can only find the Manchester version which shows 8 points, for 1,000lb bombs, later with the provision for the 4,000lb bomb. You could be refering to the first batch of Lancasters which used Manchester fuselages maybe?

As to fitting the B17's entire 17,600lbs internally - I doubt it, as according to the B17's own notes, nearly half of it is carried externally. Since you asked, here is how it is done on a B17G, according to Boeing, just for you.


Ordnance: Up to 17,600 lb carried in a lower-fuselage weapon bay rated at 9,600 lb, and on two hardpoints (both under the wings with each unit rated at 4,000 lb.), and generally comprising:

6x 1,600 lb bombs, or
8x 1,000 lb bombs or
16x 500 lb bombs carried internally and
2x 4,000 lb bombs carried externally.
6. Discount all the daylight missions.. Okay. Lets talk USAF night missions and accuracy then shall we? And over which period?

It is generally accepted that at the beginning of the war, accuracy was poor. By the end of the war the concept had been refined so well that the destruction of certain cities is still hotly debated today.

7. Glad we agree on something...

8. Yes! The fuselage didn't require reinforcement to carry the 12,000 Tallboy. It required modified doors. There were modifications to the undercarraige to carry the extra weight of the 22,000lb bomb, modifications which were carried through to subsequent aircraft. The only modifications to the fuselage were fairings, deleted turrets and a false floor.

As I mentioned earlier (and you ignored), the aircraft was significantly over engineered due to Air Ministry specifications calling for it to be capable of being launched off a catapult - or 'stressed for frictionless take-off' as they put it. It was tested succesfully at Farnoborough.

The Air Ministry wrote the spec, liked it, ordered it, and had built 7,377 of 'em. You didn't. Provide evidence to support your claims of modifications, or accept that you're wrong.

"The Lanc's engines were single stage, two speed blowered, WO Turbo-charger! While it was simple, there is no way to compaire it to the Supercharged with turbo-blower used in the American planes."

Explain please? The Merlin engine, and its Griffon engine counterpart lasted in frontline service with several air forces far longer than the B17's efforts. They were also pretty much self contained, not relying on components buried in crevices up and down the span of the wing, which isn't really superior. Lancasters didn't have a habit of blowing their wings apart when the turbosuperchargers got annoyed either.


Regards

Rich

[VX275]

Adding more fuel (ie facts) to the fire.
My father was bombed by three airforces whilst he was a small part in the Normandy campaign during 1944. Attacks by the Luftwaffe were a nuisance but were considered legitimate, as were the occasional bomb from the RAF when the ground forces were moving forward and the front line was confused. However what was unforgivable was being bombed in daylight by main force American bombers when over seven miles behind the front line! (not an isolated instance), yet two nights later the RAF main force supported a joint Canadian and British night advance (Operation Totalize) by bombing German positions 600 yards to either side of the line of advance without any blue on blue incidents.
There was a joke common amongst the troops in Normandy (apparantly started by the Germans) 'When the Luftwaffe comes over the allies duck, when the RAF come over the Germans duck, when the Americans come over EVERYONE ducks.'

[Noyade]

Im appalled at the lack of knowledge on here...surely every schoolboy knows the Lanc was a better hauler of explosives than the B-17?!Yes, and every schoolboy knows they flew together on both day and night missions. And although the Brits and Yanks initially distrusted each other, in the end they became very very good friends. And it had a happy ending.

Comics never lie. :ok:

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/3544/img499.jpg (http://img192.imageshack.us/i/img499.jpg/)
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/3296/img501w.jpg (http://img43.imageshack.us/i/img501w.jpg/)

[45-Shooter]

Are you stating that every Lancaster that was ever manufactured with three turrets stayed that way for it's entire career and that no Lancaster except the ~30 specials ever had some of their turrets removed and plated over? How do you explain the two pictures of Lancs that are clearly NOT specials, one that you posted a link to and the one's picture that I posted, that have both had the top and ventral turrets plated over?

But why bother arguing whether 1/4, 1/3 or 1/2 had their turrets removed when the correct question was which aircraft had the superior aerodynamic performance? (With or with out those turrets!)

[longer ron]

As I stated earlier...the picture you posted was taken postwar:)

I also stated that during wartime yes all standard main force Lancs retained all their turrets...I was only trying to help with one specific point,but you dont need to take my word for it - the evidence is plain to see for all.
You seem to want to get into a 'which is best' scenario - All a/c are a design compromise and have their good and bad points...no ww2 a/c was perfect.

[chiglet]

One of my [retired] colleagues was a Lancaster rear gunner. I made a model of "his" Lanc for him. Bog standard Lanc. Nose turret, mid upper NO ventral turret [as NOT "standard fit"] but with a Rose-Rice twin .50cal tail turret. I also made a model Lanc for my retiring Boss. Bags pf photos, bags of "First hand Gen"...His had the blisters on the cockpit sides, his mate didn't.
I was also very fortunate to be shown around S for Sugar, on the gate at RAF Waddington. I was in "shirt sleeved dress" and it was not an easy aeroplane to enter and exit... my hat goes off to those young [and some not so young] men who nightly flew on missions against the Enemy

[45-Shooter]

First off, do yourself a favour and ditch Wikipedia, as pretty much anybody can edit it. Next get yourself a copy of the Lancaster drawings (internet or ask the people at Avro Heritage nicely), and get a few decent books on the aircraft. I can recommend those by Francis K Mason, Bruce Robertson, and Harry Holmes as excellent reading.

I agree and have been there in person half a dozen times. Never wanted to spend the money on the factory drawings when so many planes were modified in the field.

Referring again to your previous post -

1. You missed the point entirely regarding bombloads. Your statement "All other bombs were carried by specially modified planes WO bomb bay doors." is incorrect, No it is not and I did not make the original statement! and the link I posted to shows this. No it does not and in fact the bottom or next to bottom picture prooves my point with a clearly modified plane! I'm not debating where the individual shackles are in the Lancaster or the B17, just the variance of load each can carry. I agree completely!

2. The availablility difference is my point, which again you missed.. The fact that the B17 was available in higher numbers at any one time means of course the type is going to drop more tonnage. No, it is you that missed the point! The B-17 was never available in greater numbers in England than the Lancaster! Ever! The larger numbers of B-17s were spread in to four theaters of opps! Match numbers of aircraft over a matched period of time. There were more Lancs available at any given time in England! They were available and in service in larger numbers and sooner than the B-17. Those are facts that you can not honestly dispute.

3. Please provide the figures you have from the pilots notes, or from the manufacturer maybe, that show operating the Lancaster at its service ceiling would cut the payload by more than half. The statement you make on this is your opinion, and nothing more. No, it is a fact. The more any aircraft weighs, the lower it must fly with any given thrust, wing area and L/D.

What isn't opinion is that a standard Lancaster could and did carry a substantial payload over an excessively long range Yes, I agree! - the 9 Sqn and 617 Sqn aircraft that attacked the Tirpitz weren't the 'Special' aircraft. Wrong again! This is not opinion, and regardless of number of aircraft used it was done operationally; so we can take this as a measure of what a a fairly standard aircraft is capable of. Wrong again! They were "Special" aircraft. See the quote from the link you posted below! Exactly how many Lancs had the special bulged bomb bay doors and higher rated engines?

Area Bombing Raids (Blast and Demolition)
Bomber Command Executive Codeword: "TALLBOY"

Target Type: Submarine Pens, Battleship Tirpitz.
1 x 12,000 lb deep penetration, spin-stabilised bomb containing approx. 5,760 lb of Torpex D. Usually with trip-fused 0.01 sec delay. Carried by Lancaster's with bulged bomb doors. Raids On Exceptionally Strong Structures.

The ineffectiveness of the vast majority of the strikes launched by the Fleet Air Arm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_Air_Arm) in mid-1944 led to the task of Tirpitz's destruction being transferred to the RAF's No. 5 Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._5_Group_RAF). The RAF used Lancaster bombers to carry 6-short-ton (5.4 t) Tallboy bombs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallboy_(bomb)) to penetrate the ship's heavy armour.[59] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirpitz_Battleship#cite_note-63) The first attack, Operation Paravane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paravane), took place on 15 September 1944; operating from a forward base at Yagodnik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yagodnik) in Russia, 23 Lancasters (17 each carrying one Tallboy and six each carrying twelve JW mines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Walker_(bomb)#Inventions)), scored a single hit on the ship's bow.[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirpitz_Battleship#cite_note-B26-54)

The RAF made a second attempt on 29 October, after the ship was moored off Håkøy Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H%C3%A5k%C3%B8y_Island&action=edit&redlink=1) outside Tromsø. Thirty-two Lancasters attacked the ship with Tallboys during Operation Obviate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Obviate).[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirpitz_Battleship#cite_note-B26-54) As on Operation Paravane, No. 9 Squadron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._IX_Squadron_RAF) and No. 617 Squadron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._617_Squadron) carried out the attack together, which resulted in only one near miss,[60] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirpitz_Battleship#cite_note-GD268-64)

Operation Catechism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Catechism), the final British attack on Tirpitz, took place on 12 November 1944.[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirpitz_Battleship#cite_note-B26-54) The ship again used her 38 cm guns against the bombers, which approached the battleship at 09:35; Tirpitz's main guns forced the bombers to temporarily disperse, but could not break up the attack.[63] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirpitz_Battleship#cite_note-GD272-67) A force of 32 Lancasters from Nos. 9 and 617 Squadrons dropped 29 Tallboys on the ship, with two direct hits and one near miss.[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirpitz_Battleship#cite_note-B26-54)
4. Engines - Lancaster BVI Merlin 85 1635hp Exactly how many Lancs were fitted with these engines? Exactly how many had standard Mark XX Merlins?

B VI Nine aircraft converted from B IIIs. Fitted with Merlin 85/87 which had two-stage superchargers, giving much improved high altitude performance. The B VI could achieve a maximum speed of 313 mph (505 km/h) at 18200 ft (5547 m) at 65,000 lb (29,484 kg) take off weight and a service ceiling of 28500 ft (8687 m) at the same weight; climb to 28000 ft (8534 m) at 65,000 lb (29,484 kg) take off weight was accomplished in 44.8 minutes with a maximum climb rate of 1080 fpm (5.5 m/s)at 1000 ft (305 m).[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster#cite_note-29) A Lancaster B VI was dived to a maximum indicated speed of 350 mph (565 km/h), or Mach 0.72 at 25000 ft (7620 m) in June 1944.[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster#cite_note-30) The Merlin 85/87 series engines were fitted with annular cowlings similar to the post war Avro Lincoln (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lincoln) and three bladed paddle-type propellers were fitted. These aircraft were only used by Pathfinder units (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinder_(RAF)); by No. 7 Squadron RAF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._7_Squadron_RAF), No. 83 Squadron RAF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._83_Squadron_RAF), No. 405 Squadron RCAF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._405_Squadron_RCAF) and by No. 635 Squadron RAF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._635_Squadron_RAF). Often used as a "Master Bomber" the B VI's allocated to RAF Bomber Command (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Bomber_Command) (2 being retained by Rolls Royce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Limited) for installation and flight testing)[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster#cite_note-31) had their dorsal and nose turrets removed and faired-over. The more powerful engines proved troublesome in service and were disliked by ground maintenance staff for their rough running and propensity to 'surge and hunt', making synchronisation impossible. This 'hunting' is caused by variations in the fuel/air mixture and could over time eventually damage the engine.[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster#cite_note-32) The B VI was withdrawn from service in November 1944.
Two speed, two stage.Exactly how many Lancs were fitted with these engines during the war? Exactly how many had standard Mark XX Merlins during the war? Later used in the Lancaster IV, also known as the Lincoln. These planes are not Lancasters, they are Lincolns! Do I really have to do all your homework for you just because wikipedia is lacking? Do you really have to use limited production and modified aircraft to prove your point? Please list production numbers of each type by engine!

5. There are more than 15 points, depending on which carriers are fitted. Please show me the 12 point version of a Lanc bomb bay, as I can only find the Manchester version which shows 8 points, for 1,000lb bombs, later with the provision for the 4,000lb bomb. You could be refering to the first batch of Lancasters which used Manchester fuselages maybe? Does it matter? which version of the planes we are talking about, if they made less than say 100 of them? How about limiting the discussion to versions which were made in numbers exceeding 100 each! B Mk-I, B Mk-II, B Mk-III and B Mk-X. About 1/3 of B Mk-Is had bulged bomb bay doors. Many of these planes had top and sometimes nose turrets removed. A few of the late B Mk-Is had the two stage/two speed blowers. Whether they actually made more than 100 of them with these engines during the war is debated. Post war refits do not count. Late War planes that did not see service because of fitting out delays do not count.

It is generally accepted that at the beginning of the war, accuracy was poor. By the end of the war the concept had been refined so well that the destruction of certain cities is still hotly debated today.

7. Glad we agree on something...

"The Lanc's engines were single stage, two speed blowered, WO Turbo-charger! While it was simple, there is no way to compaire it to the Supercharged with turbo-blower used in the American planes."

Explain please? The Merlin engine, and its Griffon engine counterpart lasted in frontline service with several air forces far longer than the B17's efforts. What does this have to do with anything? We replaced them with jets, just as soon as we could. They were also pretty much self contained, Not in dispute. Lancasters didn't have a habit of blowing their wings apart when the turbosuperchargers got annoyed either. Neither did B-17s, which did not blow up or burn nearly as often as Lancs. Quote;
SuperchargerCentral to the success of the Merlin was the supercharger. A.C. Lovesey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Lovesey), an engineer who was a key figure in the design of the Merlin, delivered a lecture on the development of the Merlin in 1946; in this extract he explained the importance of the supercharger:
"Coming now to specific development items we can ... divide them into three general classes:

Improvement of the supercharger.
Improved fuels.
Development of mechanical features to take care of the improvements afforded by (1) and (2).
Dealing with (1) it can be said that the supercharger determines the capacity, or ... the output, of the engine. The impression still prevails that the static capacity known as the swept volume is the basis of comparison of the possible power output for different types of engine, but this is not the case because the output of the engine depends solely on the mass of air it can be made to consume efficiently, and in this respect the supercharger plays the most important role ... the engine has to be capable of dealing with the greater mass flows with respect to cooling, freedom from detonation and capable of withstanding high gas and inertia loads ... During the course of research and development on superchargers it became apparent to us that any further increase in the altitude performance of the Merlin engine necessitated the employment of a two-stage supercharger."[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Merlin#cite_note-27)As the Merlin evolved so too did the supercharger; the latter fitting into three broad categories:[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Merlin#cite_note-Lumsden_p._201-28)

Single-stage, single-speed gearbox: Merlin I to III, XII, 30, 40, and 50 series (1937–1942).[nb 3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Merlin#cite_note-29)
Single-stage, two-speed gearbox: experimental Merlin X (1938), production Merlin XX (1940–1945).
Two-stage, two-speed gearbox with intercooler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercooler): mainly Merlin 60, 70, and 80 series (1942–1946).

What is not dispute is that the thousands of Lancasters manufactured with Merlin-XXs or the American Packard equivilents had engines that limited their cielings to well under 26,000'! Those engines had single stage blowers. IF the less powerful at altitude and less fuel efficiant Merlin powered Lancasters were required to bomb from 30,000' or higher, both fuel for the return trip and bombs would have to be off loaded before that could happen!I note from your own post that the specially engined Lancs above, had cielings WELL UNDER 29,000'! They were also used in limited ways. I would counter with the fact that the Lancaster with 4X1,635 HP Engines were few and far between1 can you list numbers that actually saw service?

[45-Shooter]

But this argument is being fought with apples Vs oranges. The Lancaster was a good plane. I have never disputed that. It was just not as good as the B-17. ( From some mission profiles and points of view!)
If we specify the bombing altitude to be above 25,000' then the Lancaster numbers start to look a whole lot less impressive. If we specify longer ranges, bomb loads go down. That is a fact of life for every single plane ever made! If we specify day light missions, then the Lancaster's frailty seems down right desperate.
If we consider that the RAF stipulated that more than half of all bombs dropped at night landed OUT SIDE of the target city limits! All of those bombs were thus wasted and the figures must be adjusted; 604,000 tons, more than half of which missed, then 304,000 tons of bombs is the BEST POSSIBLE EFFECTIVE fire power. 304,000 tons divided by 156,000 missions gives just under 3,900 pounds of EFFECTIVE bombs per sortie.
While many bombs dropped by B-17s/24s and other missed their targets, no one on the planet will state that more than a few percent of those misses landed so far away from the target as to miss the entire city! On the other hand, no one has ever shown a picture of a rail yard with over 1,000 bomb craters inside the fence dropped by Lancasters. Under that exact same definition of "Bombs inside the city limits", then the average from B-17s is far higher!:ugh:

[45-Shooter]

All our hats should go off to bomber crews! They took more casualties per capita than any other service except NAZI Submariners!
How many men do you know who would get up every morning knowing that many of them would not come back?:ok:

[Richard Woods]

45 Shooter;

Shouting the same thing over and over in the face of facts given to you (rather than your own subtle wiki edits) doesn't make it true.

The B17 as a whole is most definitely not 'better'.

1. The statement regarding bomb doors was yours, written in post no. 25. on this thread.

Field modification... a lot more flexibility was afforded B17 crews with various guns being sported in new and crazy configurations. Look through the numerous photo's in the excellent "Lancaster at War" series and you'll see there weren't that many field modifications. Basically, you're making stuff up. I expect to see your edit on wikipedia proving me wrong within an hour or so.

2. I didn't realise we were limited to a particular theatre of operations, I thought we were debating about the aircraft... Look at numbers of Lancasters on any one single mission. The most mustered was 796 on one mission. That is the most aircraft available to use at one single point in history. If we take into account unserviceable and training aircraft it still falls way short of most B17's available at any one time.

3. True, but you don't state how you arrive at less than half the payload for the altitude. You're guessing, and its a bad guess. Especially when known achievements for the Lancaster stand at 22,000lbs to 16,000 feet, several times.

Go look at the NFxxx serial batch of aircraft, used by 617Sqn on the Tirpitz raid. Built by Armstrong Whitworth at Baginton, none are 'Special' aircraft. BI 'Special' aircraft were those fitted for 'Upkeep', or 'Grand Slam' weapons.

The link I posted is correct. If a 'Special' aircraft was needed to carry a weapon, it says so. Look at the section for the 'Grand Slam'.

'Tallboy' could be carried by any normal Lancaster with bulged bomb doors and there were several production batches built that way, including a good number of the Hercules engined aircraft. I'll provide you with production figures later when I have the reference material to hand.

4. Seeing as you seem to be hung up on the Merlin XX which the Lancaster started with, then got rid of after the first BI's - lets look at your chosen in the same way.

How many B17's still had the original variant of the Wright Cyclone that the B17C had way back when it started being part of the war (funnily enough in RAF hands).

Or given that we keep talking modified aircraft how many aircraft got to the end of the war without the redesign of everything aft of the trailing edge of the wing? When a similar thing was done to the Lancaster (extended wing tips, 8 foot fuselage plug aft of the wing) they redesignated it from Lancaster IV to Lincoln.

I'm happy to use limited production aircraft as examples of what the aircraft was capable of. Don't ask me for answers as to what aircraft used things if you don't want an answer you won't like. I realise you don't like this much as it makes the B17 look a little inferior, so I'll limit it to those that saw combat. To help you defend the B17, try digging up some obscure version of B17, like the 'Aphrodite' drones. They had a bit more payload but were disposable...

If you want production numbers by model of Merlin, be prepared to do the same with verified sources for the B17.

5. Seeing as the Lancasters were ordered and built in batches of 300 or so, your point about limiting numbers wouldn't really make a difference. A reasonable number of BII, BIII, and BX aircraft had bulged bomb bay doors too, it wasn't just the BI. However, the limits you want to impose aren't satisfactory... you can't ignore something that actually was built and used in anger, even if in minor numbers. Its all 7,377 Lancasters compared against all 12,731 B17's or not at all.

7. This is what it has to do with things - An indication of how versatile something is is how long it lasts in service, in the job it was designed to do. For instance, the B52 would not be as long lasting at its job if it were of no use.

The fact is, by the time the B17 was throwing retardant on conifers and hauling rancid meat around parts of South America, the Lancaster was still patrolling Canada and a good portion of the Pacific in military service.

Regarding the fires I mentioned, even in preservation the problems continue - one B17 lost during the filming of 'Memphis Belle' and more recently the Liberty Belle burning to a cinder. Further back into wartime, look at why the wingtip vents were fitted to the B17. According to the 4th Bomb Wing, USAF - it was to cut down on unexplained wing explosions believed to be fuel vapour build up. :eek:

We all know that the B17 could get up to 35,000 feet or so - but the service ceiling isn't its bombing altitude, its a measure of how high it can fly before the climb rate suffers. I can't find record of a B17 bombing anything from it service ceiling, but research suggests typically the B17 did its job at 20,000 feet.

For higher altitudes we can bring in the B17 replacement - the B29; an altogether more worthy contestant against the Lancaster.

You points about accuracy in your latest post bring up interesting areas for discussion, in that accuracy improved during the course of the war. By the end with the use of Pathfinders, it was a very accurate process resulting in destruction of cities. The process was copied by the USAF and put into practice against Japan.

The 'frailty' in daylight missions is known right from the Lancaster's birth. But when you consider sheer firepower in defensive armaments (and the B17 was designed to be defensive) the Fortress was superior. 13 x .50 guns, against the Lancaster's 8 x .303 spells it out in no uncertain terms.

Regards,

Rich
(self confessed Avro fanatic)

[astir 8]

I had half an hour inside the BBMF Lanc at Fairford in 2010 and took a lot of photos of the interior. Should anyone want copies PM me. Or if someone knows the system for posting them on PPrune also let me know.

The men who flew Lancs were much braver than me. A very long and difficult route to the exits for most of the crew.

p.s. The only armour I could see was the pilot's seat back. Certainly none in the turrets.

Don't know why you guys are arguing about Lanc vs B17. Totally different mission configurations. Both great aircraft.

[Brewster Buffalo]

that the RAF stipulated that more than half of all bombs dropped at night landed OUT SIDE of the target city limits
I think this is a reference to the May 1941 report by Bomber Command but was this true in 1944/1945 with the better navigation aids and the pathfinder force?

They took more casualties per capita
I can quote another RAF study in 1942 which gave these statistics on the percentage chance of survival of one tour by role

Heavy & Medium Bombers 44%
Day Fighter 43%
Torpedo Bomber 17%

[45-Shooter]

The B17 as a whole is most definitely not 'better'.

2. I didn't realise we were limited to a particular theatre of operations, I thought we were debating about the aircraft... Look at numbers of Lancasters on any one single mission. The most mustered was 796 on one mission. That is the most aircraft available to use at one single point in history. If we take into account unserviceable and training aircraft it still falls way short of most B17's available at any one time.
About numbers, you list all Lancs Vs all B-17s. Yet B-17s were used in four theaters of operations and Lancs in only one. There are many reasons why there were <800 Lancs available at any one time. They were built, used and destroyed at such a rate that less than 800 were available at any given time during the war. From your post. They were less reliable than the B-17 and had a much lower mission readiness rate than the B-17. The typical bombing altitude of American missions varied between 25,000' and 31,000'! Some at almost 35,000'. No mission was ever scheduled to operate at less than 25,000' over the target. This was the minimum altitude considered necessary to avoid the most dangerous Flack. Most Lanc missions were under 17,000' over the target, NONE were at altitudes over 25,000'! Just curious; What was the maximum number of B-17s sent on any single day against the Nazis?

3. True, but you don't state how you arrive at less than half the payload for the altitude. You're guessing, and its a bad guess. Especially when known achievements for the Lancaster stand at 22,000lbs to 16,000 feet, several times.
How does lifting 22,000 pounds to 16,000' relate to the failure to lift any weight to 30,000'? IIRC, the maximum ceiling of the loaded Lanc with 14,000 pounds of bombs up was under 19,000'? So dropping 8,000 pounds of bombs off of the manifest adds 3,000'. The secret is that the fuel for the return flight must be on the plane after it drops the bombs and thus limits the ceiling that can be reached before the bombs are dropped. The Lanc's poorly blown engines is why it has a ceiling more than 10,000' lower than the B-17! This is a function of three things; Wing Loading, L/D and available power at altitude. The B-17 was the more aerodynamic of the two planes. This is not open to debate. They both had about the same MTO of 65,000 pounds and about the same EEW. They had similar wing spans and areas, yet the B-17 was faster and longer ranged than the Lanc with LESS INSTALLED POWER! Thus it had to have a better L/D.

Go look at the NFxxx serial batch of aircraft, used by 617Sqn on the Tirpitz raid. Built by Armstrong Whitworth at Baginton, none are 'Special' aircraft. BI 'Special' aircraft were those fitted for 'Upkeep', or 'Grand Slam' weapons.
Except that they were fitted with the much more powerful version of the Merlin engine! Most Lancs did not use this engine! In my book that made them "Special"! Could that mission have been flown with the much less powerful type XX Merlin engine? Not on your life!

'Tallboy' could be carried by any normal Lancaster with bulged bomb doors and there were several production batches built that way, including a good number of the Hercules engined aircraft. I'll provide you with production figures later when I have the reference material to hand.

4. Seeing as you seem to be hung up on the Merlin XX which the Lancaster started with, then got rid of after the first BI's - lets look at your chosen in the same way.
Still waiting for you to list how many Lancs were built/retro-fitted with the RR made Merlins, Vs how many were made with American made Packard Merlins? Note that WO the exact numbers in front of me, every book I have, stated that MOST Lancs were built with Packard built Merlin engines, not RRs. Every last one of those was the American Version of the Merlin XX.

I'm happy to use limited production aircraft as examples of what the aircraft was capable of. Don't ask me for answers as to what aircraft used things if you don't want an answer you won't like. I realise you don't like this much as it makes the B17 look a little inferior, so I'll limit it to those that saw combat. To help you defend the B17, try digging up some obscure version of B17, like the 'Aphrodite' drones. They had a bit more payload but were disposable...Along those lines, except for the 33 "Specials", the maximum bomb load for the rest of the >7,000 Lancasters was 14,000 pounds! The vast majority >8,000 B-17s could carry 17,600 pounds of bombs. ( Winner= B-17)

If you want production numbers by model of Merlin, be prepared to do the same with verified sources for the B17.

5. Seeing as the Lancasters were ordered and built in batches of 300 or so, your point about limiting numbers wouldn't really make a difference. A reasonable number of BII, BIII, and BX aircraft had bulged bomb bay doors too, it wasn't just the BI. However, the limits you want to impose aren't satisfactory... you can't ignore something that actually was built and used in anger, even if in minor numbers. Its all 7,377 Lancasters compared against all 12,731 B17's or not at all.
FINE! B-17s dropped 640Kt to Lancasters 608Kt! In Europe only, the B-17s also dropped 138Kt on Japan. Does that count toward the B-17s score, or do we use only those bombs dropped on Nazi/Axis targets?

7. This is what it has to do with things - An indication of how versatile something is is how long it lasts in service, in the job it was designed to do. For instance, the B52 would not be as long lasting at its job if it were of no use. But a much more accurate assessment would be when the owners could afford to replace obviously obsolete equipment with jets!


We all know that the B17 could get up to 35,000 feet or so - but the service ceiling isn't its bombing altitude, its a measure of how high it can fly before the climb rate suffers. I can't find record of a B17 bombing anything from it service ceiling, but research suggests typically the B17 did its job at 20,000 feet. Wrong assessment! The minimum bombing altitude over Europe was 25,000'!

For higher altitudes we can bring in the B17 replacement - the B29; an altogether more worthy contestant against the Lancaster.True, but not relevant to this argument!

The 'frailty' in daylight missions is known right from the Lancaster's birth. But when you consider sheer firepower in defensive armaments (and the B17 was designed to be defensive) the Fortress was superior. 13 x .50 guns, against the Lancaster's 8 x .303 spells it out in no uncertain terms.
So very true!
Regards,
Rich
(self confessed Avro fanatic)
Regards,

Stewart
( Self confessed Strategic Bomber fanatic!)

[Richard Woods]

Stewart,

Unless you start accepting what you read in books and other published papers, we're going nowhere.

About numbers, you list all Lancs Vs all B-17s. Yet B-17s were used in four theaters of operations and Lancs in only one. There are many reasons why there were <800 Lancs available at any one time. They were built, used and destroyed at such a rate that less than 800 were available at any given time during the war.

Not really an argument about the aircraft there as the superior manufacturing capacity of the USA is known. You're missing my point. When comparing tonnage, you've been talking total bombs dropped by the B17 as a type. The only way to get a true comparison would be to put equal numbers of each aircraft side by side and compare them.

From your post. They were less reliable than the B-17 and had a much lower mission readiness rate than the B-17.

Prove it? In terms of single aircraft, they often flew on far longer - look at numbers of aircraft that got over 50 missions. Or over 100.

Compared against the B-17 and B-24s - where after a couple of their crew did 25 missions they got classed as war weary, painted in funny colours and used as 'Assembly ships' - its no contest.

The typical bombing altitude of American missions varied between 25,000' and 31,000'! Some at almost 35,000'. No mission was ever scheduled to operate at less than 25,000' over the target. This was the minimum altitude considered necessary to avoid the most dangerous Flack. Most Lanc missions were under 17,000' over the target, NONE were at altitudes over 25,000'! Just curious; What was the maximum number of B-17s sent on any single day against the Nazis?

Unfortunately they didn't avoid the flak or the fighters. Reading 91st BG, 303rd BG and various other 8th AF records show bombing heights of around 23,000 ft. None below 25,000 eh? Read on.

The most B17's I can find on one mission was 453 B17's to Cologne in October 1944. Having said that, I don't have specific numbers as I do for the Lancaster.

How does lifting 22,000 pounds to 16,000' relate to the failure to lift any weight to 30,000'? IIRC, the maximum ceiling of the loaded Lanc with 14,000 pounds of bombs up was under 19,000'? So dropping 8,000 pounds of bombs off of the manifest adds 3,000'. The secret is that the fuel for the return flight must be on the plane after it drops the bombs and thus limits the ceiling that can be reached before the bombs are dropped. The Lanc's poorly blown engines is why it has a ceiling more than 10,000' lower than the B-17!

I've pointed out to you twice now - bombing height and ceiling aren't the same. I've found a couple of reference to B17's in the Pacific bombing from 30,000 ft, but no details of the load.

To answer your question though; lifting 22,000lbs to 16,000 ft is related to the B17's attempts to get 17,600lbs to the same height, for substantially less range.

This is a function of three things; Wing Loading, L/D and available power at altitude. The B-17 was the more aerodynamic of the two planes. This is not open to debate. They both had about the same MTO of 65,000 pounds and about the same EEW. They had similar wing spans and areas, yet the B-17 was faster and longer ranged than the Lanc with LESS INSTALLED POWER! Thus it had to have a better L/D.

You've only got to look at the Lanc to realise its not the most aerodynamic aircraft in the world. Its wing isn't designed for speed either, its there to lift a heavy weight at low speed... something it did quite well into the 1990's.

Except that they were fitted with the much more powerful version of the Merlin engine! Most Lancs did not use this engine! In my book that made them "Special"! Could that mission have been flown with the much less powerful type XX Merlin engine? Not on your life!

Apart from the very first batch of Lancasters there were few that had Merlin XX engines... about 900 aircraft out of 7,377. I posted this further back in the thread, this highlights your ignorance. The NFxxx batch were STANDARD BIII AIRCRAFT. "Special" aircraft were designated as such.

Still waiting for you to list how many Lancs were built/retro-fitted with the RR made Merlins, Vs how many were made with American made Packard Merlins? Note that WO the exact numbers in front of me, every book I have, stated that MOST Lancs were built with Packard built Merlin engines, not RRs. Every last one of those was the American Version of the Merlin XX.

Indeed, and you'll notice that Packard never built the Merlin XX, they produced the Merlin 28 which was based on it, and re-engineered. In regards of numbers around 3,030 Packard equipped Lancaster BIII were built, out of 7,377.

Along those lines, except for the 33 "Specials", the maximum bomb load for the rest of the >7,000 Lancasters was 14,000 pounds! The vast majority >8,000 B-17s could carry 17,600 pounds of bombs. ( Winner= B-17)

I posted the Lancasters loads, yet you've ignored them. I also posted the woeful performance of the B17 when given 17,600lbs to carry.

Admittedly the Lancaster regularly carried 14,000lbs. What did the B17 carry on a regular basis?

8,000lbs.

Winner = Lanc.

FINE! B-17s dropped 640Kt to Lancasters 608Kt! In Europe only, the B-17s also dropped 138Kt on Japan. Does that count toward the B-17s score, or do we use only those bombs dropped on Nazi/Axis targets?

Just keep it to a representative number. For example - If I had one aircraft and you had two, and we both sent them out against the same targets at the same time; you'd drop more. If we take one aircraft of mine, and one of yours, it becomes more representative between aircraft rather than operator.

But a much more accurate assessment would be when the owners could afford to replace obviously obsolete equipment with jets!

Find me an available jet that could do the job the Lancaster was doing in Canada in the 1960's, or in the Pacific.

Wrong assessment! The minimum bombing altitude over Europe was 25,000'!

No, I think you need to go read some more. Here's a part of an article by John T Correll, for Airforce magazine.

"Postwar analysis found that accuracy had been about the same in Europe and Asia for day visual and radar precision bombing. Eighth Air Force in Great Britain put 31.8 percent of its bombs within 1,000 feet of the aim point from an average altitude of 21,000 feet. Fifteenth Air Force in Italy averaged 30.78 percent of its bombs within 1,000 feet from 20,500 feet. In the Asia and the Pacific, Twentieth Air Force—45.5 percent of whose sorties were daylight precision despite the emphasis on area bombing in the last months of the war—put 31 percent of its bombs within 1,000 feet of the aim point, although the bombing altitudes were on average 4,500 feet lower than for Eighth Air Force"

Note he says 'average' not 'minimum'.


Summing up?

B17 =

Faster at higher altitude. Comes at the cost of range and payload. Daylight missions required nearly 4,000lbs of payload capacity used by defensive armament, which though substantial is barely adequate.

Lancaster =

Ultimate heavy lifter, only rivalled by the B29. Versatile in terms of bombload, due to uninterrupted 33 feet long bomb bay. Runs out of breath at higher altitude. Poor defenses.

Crews of both aircraft =

Heroes.


Regards,

Rich

[Agaricus bisporus]

From a popular song of the time, to the tune of The Battle Hymn of the Republic, aka John Brown's Body

We're flying Flying Fortresses at thirty thousand feet
We're flying over Germany to give the Huns a treat
We've bags and bags of ammo and a teeny-weeny bomb
And we drop the bastard from so high we don't know where it's gone

Fer Chrissakes, the Mosquito had a better bomb load (and a bigger bomb bay??) than a B17. Whats there to have a discussion about re the Lanc? As a bomb truck the B17 wasn't even in the same class. It might have been better for inter-crew football matches I suppose...

[Weheka]

Interesting, what targets and dates did the B17 drop (138kt?) of bombs on Japan, and where did they launch these missions from? I haven't read much on the bombing campaign against the Japanese mainland, thought it was pretty much all B29s plus a few B24s and of coarse B25s.

Both the Lancaster and B17 were great aircraft (not normally referred to as "planes") of WW2, but I would side with Richard, who seems know exactly what he is talking about, on which one packed the most punch.

Also, any one who is a self confessed "fanatic on strategic bombers" surely would not confuse Flak with "Flack"?

[longer ron]

The Lancaster regularly carried 14,000lbs. What did the B17 carry on a regular basis?

= 8,000lbs.

Richard I think you are being too kind to the B17 there - for the long range missions deep into germany the bomb load would have been 4,000 lbs.

In the funny 'logic' of the military procurement cycle...one could argue that the B17 was a complete failure at its primary role,on early raids into germany they got mauled by fighters and flak and could only achieve acceptable losses with heavy fighter escort.
So one could argue that the B17's best defensive weapon was (say) the P51 - and once the P51 became operational (late 1943) then (to use Bullshooter45's favourite expression) perhaps the B17's could have been field modified to remove some of its defensive armament to improve a/c performance!
Please note that I am not grinding an ax(e) about the B17,it was the fault of the military 'planners' - who thought that the bombers could get through unescorted.

Another little facet of the B17 war (perhaps B24 also ?) was that only a small proportion of the a/c (formation/deputy + possibly element leader) used the bombsight...the rest of the bombardiers 'toggled' when they saw the leader drop.

As I said - I dont have any axes to grind here,I have been an aircraft engineer for 40 years so I do not look at any aircraft through rose tinted specs...they are all a compromise engineeringwise.
If I had been a Heavy Bomber pilot in WW2 then there is no doubt I would have chosen these 2 a/c types to fly!
The B17 because she was easy to fly and was a tough bird !!
The Lanc because she was a pilots a/c -the controls were definitely the most ergonomic of the brit heavies.

[Mac the Knife]

"PS, did you know about the losses from Schlang muzak because the bottom ball turret was removed for night bombing?"

It was "Schräge Musik" [Jazz] not "Schlang muzak" (sic.)

Schräge Musik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%A4ge_Musik)

Mac

:}

[stilton]

Surely points made with vast amounts of red ink must be a true reflection of history :eek:

[rolling20]

I suggest one looks at the BOMBER COMMAND LOSSES 1939-45 by William R. Chorley.
Lancaster losses from 1942 onwards are shown with a 7 man crew, sometimes 8 if 101 Squadron operated or if an aircraft carried a 'second dicky' along.
If no mid upper turret was being used, then what on earth was the mid upper doing on board? End of argument.

[45-Shooter]

Stewart,There are many reasons why there were <800 Lancs available at any one time. They were built, used and destroyed at such a rate that less than 800 were available at any given time during the war.

You're missing my point. When comparing tonnage, you've been talking total bombs dropped by the B17 as a type. The only way to get a true comparison would be to put equal numbers of each aircraft side by side and compare them.

From your post. They were less reliable than the B-17 and had a much lower mission readiness rate than the B-17.

Prove it? In terms of single aircraft, they often flew on far longer - look at numbers of aircraft that got over 50 missions. Or over 100.
I've tried to do this several different ways and each time you change the subject or twist the point, but here goes again from the top;
The B-17 carried on average, less bomb tonnage per mission as reflected in the total tonnage divided by the number of missions flown! IIRC, about 4,000 pounds for the B-17 force Vs 7,800 pounds for the lancaster force total.
The Lancaster force required almost 8000 planes and one or two years longer to do this. There were never that many B-17s in England!
Of the ~7,000 B-17s sent to England, almost a thousand less than the total production of Lancs, they flew for about a year less. SO, less B-17 planes flew MORE missions than Lancaster planes in fewer years and dropped more tonnes of bombs. They were able to do that because the Engines were much more reliable than the Merlins in the Lanc.
The bomb loads and distances were determined by strategy and tactics, not the various planes ability to carry bombs over range! That has absolutely nothing to do with it.
The typical bombing altitude of American missions varied between 25,000' and 31,000'! Some at almost 35,000'. No mission was ever scheduled to operate at less than 25,000' over the target. This was the minimum altitude considered necessary to avoid the most dangerous Flack. Most Lanc missions were under 17,000' over the target, NONE were at altitudes over 25,000'! Just curious; What was the maximum number of B-17s sent on any single day against the Nazis?

Unfortunately they didn't avoid the flak or the fighters. Reading 91st BG, 303rd BG and various other 8th AF records show bombing heights of around 23,000 ft. None below 25,000 eh? Read on.
There is a differance between schedualed and actual, but that does not change the fact that the 8th AAF flew more missions in less time or that their consistant average altitude was higher!

The most B17's I can find on one mission was 453 B17's to Cologne in October 1944.
You missed the schwinfurt raid with ~660 bombers, IIRC.

I've pointed out to you twice now - bombing height and ceiling aren't the same. I've found a couple of reference to B17's in the Pacific bombing from 30,000 ft, but no details of the load.

To answer your question though; lifting 22,000lbs to 16,000 ft is related to the B17's attempts to get 17,600lbs to the same height, for substantially less range.
Any planes ability to carry load is inversely proportional to the range, ceiling and speed at which it does it.
Flying higher requires more throttle. That shortens range. That lowers bomb load that can be carried. Because air rarifies at a constant manner as one ascends, the difference in weight can be used to calculate the exact ceiling that a plane can reach with any given load, IF you know the ceiling with some other load. Do those calcs!

You've only got to look at the Lanc to realise its not the most aerodynamic aircraft in the world. Its wing isn't designed for speed either, its there to lift a heavy weight at low speed... something it did quite well into the 1990's.

Except that they were fitted with the much more powerful version of the Merlin engine! Most Lancs did not use this engine! In my book that made them "Special"! Could that mission have been flown with the much less powerful type XX Merlin engine? Not on your life!

Apart from the very first batch of Lancasters there were few that had Merlin XX engines... about 900 aircraft out of 7,377. I posted this further back in the thread, this highlights your ignorance. The NFxxx batch were STANDARD BIII AIRCRAFT. "Special" aircraft were designated as such.

I can see that we are useing the same word for different meanings. According to Janes, page 106, PP 5; The Lancaster B Mk-III was the same plane as the B Mk-I except it was fitted with Packard built Merlin 28s, which were exactly the same as RR built Merlin XXs! 1280 HP! As far as I can see, all other Merlin engined Lancs were "Modified" as in "Special"! out of the ~8000 built, less than 100 had any Merlin engine that made over 1400 HP and they were probably all out of the B Mk-I batch.

Still waiting for you to list how many Lancs were built/retro-fitted with the RR made Merlins, Vs how many were made with American made Packard Merlins? Note that WO the exact numbers in front of me, every book I have, stated that MOST Lancs were built with Packard built Merlin engines, not RRs. Every last one of those was the American Version of the Merlin XX.

Indeed, and you'll notice that Packard never built the Merlin XX, they produced the Merlin 28 which was based on it, and re-engineered. In regards of numbers around 3,030 Packard equipped Lancaster BIII were built, out of 7,377.
Exactly my point! The vast majority of Lancs, >7,000, had SINGLE STAGE ENGINES! Also according to Janes, on the same page; The Maximum bomb load at 1,000 miles range was 14,000 pounds! Just to clarify that point; If you used 100% of the fuel to fly the mission, WO leaving any reserve, it could fly 500 miles, drop the bombs and return, but only if you did not use any fuel forming up or waiting to land. That means that in practical terms, you could send them 400-450 miles at the most, if they did not form up into groups.

Along those lines, except for the 33 "Specials", the maximum bomb load for the rest of the >7,000 Lancasters was 14,000 pounds! The vast majority >8,000 B-17s could carry 17,600 pounds of bombs. ( Winner= B-17)

I posted the Lancasters loads, yet you've ignored them. I also posted the woeful performance of the B17 when given 17,600lbs to carry.

I forgot the load list you posted because it was not relevant at that point. Since that time, I have found that less than 40% could carry the heavier, 18,000 pound load. B Mk-IIIs only! Of course discounting all 387 with engines of more than 1,280 HP, including 300 B Mk-IIs. (I have yet to find the maximum standard bomb load of the B Mk-II!)
Again from Janes; on page 210, B-17 Range with maximum bomb load at 220 MPH = 1,100 miles, or about 100 miles farther than the Lancaster with 3,600 pounds less bombs. So much for the differance in L/D!
Admittedly the Lancaster regularly carried 14,000lbs. What did the B17 carry on a regular basis?8,000lbs. Winner = Lanc. Much less! about 4,500 pounds on average! The average of all Lancaster missions was about 7,800 pounds. Effects of lower operating altitude and shorter operational range AS DICTATED BY THEIR RESPECTIVE MASTERS!! HAVING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE!

Just keep it to a representative number. For example - If I had one aircraft and you had two, and we both sent them out against the same targets at the same time; you'd drop more. If we take one aircraft of mine, and one of yours, it becomes more representative between aircraft rather than operator.

So on to the analysis;
1. The EEW of the B-17 is slightly less than the Lancaster's Empty Equipped Weight!
2. Both aircraft have the same MTO, or Maximum Take Off weight about 65,000 pounds.
3. The BEST B-17 has less available power than any Lancaster variant! ( 1,200 to 1,280!)
4. Depending on model, altitude, weight, etc, the B-17 is between 13 and 30 MPH faster than the Lancaster! ( Any Lancaster!)
5. Therefore, it has a better L/D and is more efficient aerodynamically.
6. I could go on about fuel tankage and SFC, but that would be superfluous.
If the Lancaster was made with Packard engines, IE, a B Mk-III it could carry 18,000 pounds to a range of <800 miles. That is a heavier bomb load than any B-17 could do, but the drawbacks were, less range, mixed larger and smaller bombs, lower altitude, depending on model, 16,000 to 19,500' and with less speed. On the B-17s side it could drop four identical 4,000 pounders, carried internally, with actual weights about 3,850 pounds to a range od 1,250 miles and an altitude of 26,500'.
Find me an available jet that could do the job the Lancaster was doing in Canada in the 1960's, or in the Pacific. This is relevant how?

Wrong assessment! The minimum bombing altitude over Europe was 25,000'!

No, I think you need to go read some more. Here's a part of an article by John T Correll, for Airforce magazine.

"Postwar analysis found that accuracy had been about the same in Europe and Asia for day visual and radar precision bombing. Eighth Air Force in Great Britain put 31.8 percent of its bombs within 1,000 feet of the aim point from an average altitude of 21,000 feet. Fifteenth Air Force in Italy averaged 30.78 percent of its bombs within 1,000 feet from 20,500 feet. In the Asia and the Pacific, Twentieth Air Force—45.5 percent of whose sorties were daylight precision despite the emphasis on area bombing in the last months of the war—put 31 percent of its bombs within 1,000 feet of the aim point, although the bombing altitudes were on average 4,500 feet lower than for Eighth Air Force"

Note he says 'average' not 'minimum'
I have not seen this article! Taking it at face value American bombing altitudes were lower than most other authors have written. But how does that lower altitude stack up Vs the well under 20,000' or barely over 15,000' for most Lancaster missions?

Summing up?
B17 =

Faster at higher altitude. Comes at the cost of range and payload. Daylight missions required nearly 4,000lbs of payload capacity used by defensive armament, which though substantial is barely adequate.

1. The EEW of the B-17(any), INCLUDING the 4,000 pounds of armor, ammunition and weapons was about 1,000 pounds less than the EEW of the Lancaster. Different more advanced construction techniques. Really bad point since the B-17 was started ~half a dozen years before the Lanc? I think, my personal oppinion that is, is that the differance in weight was caused by the added metal required to strengthen the 33' long bomb bay which protruded long beyond the wing spar(S) which supported it? ( Can't remember if it had one or two?)
2 . This is the entire point! With any given weight of bombs the B-17 will fly farther at higher altitude and faster! You keep failing to differentiate between what the plane could do and what the masters wanted it to do! This is not a small difference. It is between 11-20% advantage to the B-17 depending on model and mission parameters!
Lancaster =

Ultimate heavy lifter, only rivalled by the B29. Wrong! Versatile in terms of bombload, due to uninterrupted 33 feet long, but very low bomb bay. Runs out of breath at higher altitude. Poor defenses, and fragile construction WO much armor.

If I had to summarize this last, I'd say that the long bomb bay was more versatile in that the B-17 witch could only carry bombs up to 10' in length. But the B-17's bomb bay was divided in half and twice and a half as tall. It was possible, but very rarely done, to carry two 4,000 pound standard medium case American bombs on each of the two sides, one above the other, FOUR total! It is imposable for the lancaster to match this load. While I do not know the CoG limits, I do know that hanging two 1,000 pounders on the last two racks was, if not forbidden, restricted, because if they failed to release, the plane was lost due to aft CoG excursion. The standard Lanc could not carry this bomb at all because it was too fat to fit inside the regular bomb bay doors! That is why they built the "Cookie"! While it might be possible to fit three of these monsters on the CL hooks, in a plane with bulged doors, I sincerely doubt that anyone would do it for the
afore mentioned CoG reason if the last bomb hangs up.
If you limit your argument to later model Lancasters with the requisit capacity to carry 18,000 pounds, it can carry 400 pounds more bombs than the B-17, but to a much shorter range! If we ask that the maximum weight of incendiary bombs be carried, then the B-17 with it's 42 bomb shackles, to the Lancs 15, wins hands down! What type of bomb did the RAF switch to late in the war when the discovered that fire bombs were five and a half times as effective at high explosives? It can load up to 40 each 440 pound incendiary cluster bomb units! Not that this would normally be done, but loading 34 in each B-17 was done on at least one occasion that we have pictures of! 34X440 pounds = 14,960 pounds! How many pounds of incendiaries could the lancaster carry from the charts you posted previously?

But now the Piece de la resistance! How would the two aircraft have done if their respective missions were swapped?
The Lancaster forced to fly over Nazi held Europe in broad day light WO fighter cover and in the face of visually directed Flack? We already know how the B-17 faired. But let us take an excursion down fantasy lane;
1. The Lanc has to add 4,000 pounds of armor, weapons and ammunition. Subtracting the same weight from pay load! ( Just to make absolutely certain that we all understand this point, remember that the Lancaster's average bomb load for the war was under 8,000 pounds and the B-17's over 4,400, which means that the B-17 has a >700 pound edge!
2. The rest of the planes fragile construction makes it much easier to shoot down than the B-17. Bad luck!
3. The lower speed and altitude makes it much easier to intercept. More chances for the fragility to suffer 20-30 MM Cannon hits. More bad luck!
4. The slower cruising speed means that the bomber is over enemy territory longer, again providing more chances to the Luftwaffe to intercept! OOOH that's gotta hurt?
5. The lower altitude makes it easier for Nazi Flack to get hits. ( The standard formula for this is the square of the difference in range.) If 20,500' in the B-17, verses 19,000 feet in the Lancaster makes 16.4% more losses to Flack. But wait, the Lanc is more fragile and near misses would be more likely to down the plane. Very more bad luck! But wait, if the Lanc bombs from a more typical altitude and the Fortress from a higher altitude, say 25,000' Vs 16,000' then the Nazi Flack is 244% more likely to hit! This is not as big a thing as it sounds given that losses to Flack were 1~2% at worst including medium level bombing by B-25s and 26s. But when you consider that there were 787 planes on the raid you mention, that is an extra 21.4 planes lost?
6. The reduced L/D requires the Lancaster to carry fewer bombs and more fuel to distant targets. That means more missions to any single target, thus more chances to intercept. More shuttle missions landing in Russia. There are just too many permutations of this line of argument to continue with a straight face.

On the other side of the coin;
The B-17 gets to shed 3,000 pounds and carry more bombs to a longer range than the Lanc by a huge margin. The weight of fuel for the return to base trip is less by the L/D of that weight. Or they just keep the armor and dump some of the crew and waist guns/ammo? Or wait, they dump it all but the tail gunner and ventral ball turret gunner, pilot, co-pilot, and bombardier/radio operator. Five crew is a thousand pounds plus the weight of the armor protecting them, may be 2000 pounds to play with. OR shed all of the turrets and six crew, it is according to one poster here 50 MPH faster! What if after switching mission profiles the B-17 was modified just for night missions? Then it would be almost as fast as a Mossy, fly higher, may be, and certainly carry much more bombs! How hard would it be to down a B-17 with Mossy speed and B-17 toughness? Right!

Now you tell me which is the better plane! Crews of both aircraft =

Heroes. Absolutely!!!


Regards,

Stewart.

[45-Shooter]

Good one! I am the first to admit that my CFS rotted brain is not the best around. I do not have a clue what I was thinking?

[45-Shooter]

Quote:
The Lancaster regularly carried 14,000lbs. What did the B17 carry on a regular basis?

= 8,000lbs. Richard I think you are being too kind to the B17 there - for the long range missions deep into germany the bomb load would have been 4,000 lbs.
No! For really long ranges it would have been closer to 2,000 pounds!

In the funny 'logic' of the military procurement cycle...one could argue that the B17 was a complete failure at its primary role,on early raids into germany they got mauled by fighters and flak and could only achieve acceptable losses with heavy fighter escort.
This is absolutely true! The first B-17s were pathetic, armed with 5 X .30 caliber RCMGs. The second batch had 6 X .30s! It was not until the B-17E that the plane was equipped with an additional 3,600 pounds of armor, weapons and ammo, including ten to eleven .50 caliber HMGs. Note also that the B-17 at least according to the Germans, SHOT DOWN MORE Nazi planes than any other type! More than any other type! ( It bears repeating!)
So one could argue that the B17's best defensive weapon was (say) the P51 - and once the P51 became operational (late 1943) then (to use Bullshooter45's favourite expression) perhaps the B17's could have been field modified to remove some of its defensive armament to improve a/c performance!
I like that idea! Suppose that the Lancaster and B-17 had been forced to switch rolls? The Lanc bombs during the day and the Fortress at night! Strip out most of that armor, weapons and ammo. Relocate the flight deck to the bomb aimer's level, plate over the flight deck bulge and windshield, all the turrets and extraneous gun positions, leaving only the tail gunner with a crew of four! Now it is as fast or faster and higher flying than the Mossy B Mk-VI and caries much more than twice the bomb load to much farther ranges! WOW!
Please note that I am not grinding an ax(e) about the B17,it was the fault of the military 'planners' - who thought that the bombers could get through unescorted.
Again, you are absolutely right about that! It was also the Military leaders that chose the mission profiles that made the one plane look better than it was and the other to appear to be less than it was!

Another little facet of the B17 war (perhaps B24 also ?) was that only a small proportion of the a/c (formation/deputy + possibly element leader) used the bombsight...the rest of the bombardiers 'toggled' when they saw the leader drop.
Again, This is absolutely true!

As I said - I dont have any axes to grind here,I have been an aircraft engineer for 40 years so I do not look at any aircraft through rose tinted specs...they are all a compromise engineeringwise.
Again, This is absolutely true! But you tell me honestly that given one plane is faster and higher flying on less power at the same weight, span and WA, it then has to have a better L/D and supirior drag plot, does it not?
Edited to fix typos.

[45-Shooter]

In the Philipins and other targets in the Solomons and Marianas. I meant to say PTO and substituted "Japan" instead. Also should have had a decimal point between the three and eight.

[45-Shooter]

Quote; "Fer Chrissakes, the Mosquito had a better bomb load (and a bigger bomb bay??) than a B17. Whats there to have a discussion about re the Lanc? As a bomb truck the B17 wasn't even in the same class. It might have been better for inter-crew football matches I suppose..."

Really? A Mossy can tote 17,600 pounds of bombs? Roughly half of the Lancs built could not carry more than 14,000 pounds!
Range of the Lanc with 14,000 up was 1,000 miles. Page 106 of Janes. The B-17 could haul the maximum load of 17,600 pounds to 1,100 miles! Page 206 of Janes. Remember that is round trip range with the bombs left half way and no reserve in either case! That makes the true "Radius of Action" with reserves about 400-450 miles! Lets see... more pounds of bombs to longer range for the B-17???
Right!

[45-Shooter]

Quote "For higher altitudes we can bring in the B17 replacement - the B29; an altogether more worthy contestant against the Lancaster.
Regards,
Rich
(self confessed Avro fanatic)"

I found this link to compare Lancaster and B-29 bomb loads. See if you do not find it interesting. By the way. I had visited the foundry in question when I was a kid!

The Extra-Super Blockbuster (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1967/mar-apr/coker.html)

[Weheka]

"You missed the schwinfurt raid with ~660 bombers, IIRC."

Absolute rubbish, by "raid" I would assume you mean one of the Schweinfurt raids, there were two main ones, and probably others I am not aware of.
The first on August 17th 1943 saw 230 B17s sent to that city, plus 146 to Regensburg, result 60 aircraft lost. The second raid on Oct 14th of the same year saw 291 B17s go to Schweinfurt, and just to prove the first raid was not a fluke, the Germans again dispatched 60 of the raiders.

[Noyade]

The B-17 could haul the maximum load of 17,600 pounds to 1,100 miles! Page 206 of JanesIf it's the 45-46' Jane's, then I think not mate. There is no mention of 17,600 lbs.

It states the "normal range (maximum bomb load and normal fuel) 1,100 miles @ 220mph at 25,000 ft".
In the armament section it makes it clear - "External racks no longer fitted".

I believe "maximum" is referring to 12,800 lbs, based on other sources.

Here's the Range/Bomb load figures according to the Australian War Memorial...

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/6608/img581t.jpg (http://img819.imageshack.us/i/img581t.jpg/)

(Does anyone have photos of B-17s on their way to Hun-land with bombs attached to the under-wing racks?)

[Lightning Mate]

Here's one:

http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu82/Lightning_29/B-17.jpg

[Noyade]

Thanks mate. But when carrying the BG series of gliders I doubt the internal bay was carrying anything. I could be wrong though.

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/3362/img583j.jpg (http://img15.imageshack.us/i/img583j.jpg/)

No, I'm looking for a 17,600 lb jobber with traditional bombs on the wing racks.

[Lightning Mate]

Whilst you are doing that then, get back over to SC.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Anyone able to provide the equivalent figires for a Lanc?
I expect the bottom line will read max load 22,000lb external racks not required. And that's nearly double the B17s normal max. Its also 2 tons more than the B17s max max...Can't imagine what the drag of external racks and stores would have done to the range.And while we're at it , how far could a Mosquito haul 4000lb?

[Noyade]

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/8964/img584.jpg (http://img404.imageshack.us/i/img584.jpg/)

[Noyade]

how far could a Mosquito haul 4000lb:ok:

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/1314/img585.jpg (http://img404.imageshack.us/i/img585.jpg/)

[Noyade]

I'm looking for a 17,600 lb jobber with traditional bombs on the wing racks. Found some...

351st BS - Page 28 (http://www.100thbg.com/mainmenus/351st/351st28.htm)

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/824/48785951.jpg (http://img841.imageshack.us/i/48785951.jpg/)

So, what is the range, carrying 17,600 lb?

[Agaricus bisporus]

Thanks Noyade. Interesting comparison.

Here's a link that includes more detail about external B17 ordnance inc a pic.

Disney bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_bomb)

[45-Shooter]

What is your honest opinion of the two planes if they had been required to swap missions? Lancs restricted to day light bombing for the entire war and B-17s allowed to bomb at night. Using the Grand Slam argument is silly because the B-17 could conceivably be modified to carry the Short, but Fat Man; 22 Kilo tonnes to 22,000 pounds. The lancaster's bomb bay was not nearly tall enough to carry that bomb load. So lets get off of the idea of the 33 or so Lancs that were specially modified to carry GS. It is the mission that dictates how many bombs you carry.

The first ~3,800 or so Lancasters could haul 14,000 pounds. Certainly more than the first ~1000 or so B-17s. The last ~4000 or so Lancs could carry 18,000 pounds, more than any of the last 8000+ B-17s. But none of that is applicable because it was Mission Planning that made both planes carry much less, so that the average for all missions was ~4,500 pounds for the B-17s and ~7,800 pounds for the Lancaster. If their rolls would have been reversed, the AVERAGE bomb loads would have also been reversed! Because load and Range are fungible, you can trade one for the other at will, over any but the shortest ranges. Because the B-17 was/is/and always will be more efficient aerodynamically, it will always win that trade off at any but the shortest ranges. Always! Because of that aerodynamic advantage it will always fly higher at any given weight. These two facts are not in dispute. You keep going back to the various placard numbers, but you have never explained why the Lancaster could carry 18,000 pounds but could only AVERAGE less than 8000 pounds per mission?

[Richard Woods]

What is your honest opinion of the two planes if they had been required to swap missions?

No opinion needed. The B17 was used at night by the RAF, and the Lancaster did bomb by day.

Lancs restricted to day light bombing for the entire war and B-17s allowed to bomb at night. Using the Grand Slam argument is silly because the B-17 could conceivably be modified to carry the Short, but Fat Man; 22 Kilo tonnes to 22,000 pounds.

Conceivably, the Lancaster could carry several "Little Boy" weapons. Given the size of 120" x 28" and a weight of 9,000lbs you could get a couple in a standard BIII with the doors closed, and be at a comfortable 18,000lbs. What's your point?

In reality the B17 was never considered for atomic bombs, where the Lancaster was. It was the logistics that prevented it.

The lancaster's bomb bay was not nearly tall enough to carry that bomb load.

Whoops. Wrong again. What carriers did the atomic bombs use? "Grand Slam" ones. Guess what aircraft they fit, and what aircraft they don't.

So lets get off of the idea of the 33 or so Lancs that were specially modified to carry GS. It is the mission that dictates how many bombs you carry.

Mission may dictate how much you are required to carry - not how much you can. This is why your argument is pointless. A B17 or a Lancaster may have been ordered to carry a kettle, a cuddly toy and a fondue set, but it doesn't mean its all its capable of.

The first ~3,800 or so Lancasters could haul 14,000 pounds. Certainly more than the first ~1000 or so B-17s. The last ~4000 or so Lancs could carry 18,000 pounds, more than any of the last 8000+ B-17s. But none of that is applicable because it was Mission Planning that made both planes carry much less,

Mission planning has nothing to do with the physical capability of an aircraft.

so that the average for all missions was ~4,500 pounds for the B-17s and ~7,800 pounds for the Lancaster. If their rolls would have been reversed, the AVERAGE bomb loads would have also been reversed!

No it wouldn't, and they weren't. Lancasters bombed in daylight to Augsburg, and then several other daylight missions later in the war. The loads stay the same, becuase the targets are still as distant, and the aircraft still flies the same regardless of if daylight or not.

Because load and Range are fungible, you can trade one for the other at will, over any but the shortest ranges. Because the B-17 was/is/and always will be more efficient aerodynamically, it will always win that trade off at any but the shortest ranges. Always!

So you keep saying. But I've shown you - the B17 only wins at higher altitudes. If we use the Lancaster at altitudes its happy with (16,000ft) rather than try and force it up higher, its happy to carry 22,000lbs up there for 1600 miles.

The USAF manuals give figures for the B17 consistently less than that... 17,600lbs for 1000miles or so at 16,000ft. If we look at longer ranges, the B17 was down to 4,000lbs at its most stretched. By comparison the longest Lancaster missions were still carrying 9,000lbs at 2,000 miles. (East Kirkby - Munich, 630 Sqn, 1944)

Why you're ignoring this I don't know. I'm beginning to think you have a learning disability.

Because of that aerodynamic advantage it will always fly higher at any given weight.

Read above. It doesn't. At comparative loads to the Lancaster, its inferior at the same altitudes. Its only superior at high altitude; and only then because the Lancaster can't get to them. Up to its ceiling the Lanc outperforms the B17 in payload and range.

These two facts are not in dispute.

They are not facts. They're your opinion. The facts are what you find in manuals, books, and real life, not in your posts - and you've been proved wrong repeatedly.

You keep going back to the various placard numbers, but you have never explained why the Lancaster could carry 18,000 pounds but could only AVERAGE less than 8000 pounds per mission?

Maybe the multitude of other operations it did such as minelaying, leafleting, supply dropping to starving civilians, repatriating POW's, a little bit of work for Coastal Command, and specialist operations that required special payloads... stuff the B17 never got called upon to do in USAF service. Or maybe the fact that the loads were mixed depending on the job required.

The explanation is simple. The aircraft's capability is what it can truly carry, not what it is ordered to carry!

Rich

[Agaricus bisporus]

Richard, have you ever heard the quote,

"Never try to teach a pig to sing.
It's a waste of time, and it annoys the pig."

Save your breath!

[Load Toad]

The bloke is a troll matey - ignore the troll.

[45-Shooter]

Missed the "IIRC" inserted at the start of that post did you? The 660 must have been the 60+60 losses of the two raids? I do not know, but is it really that important to this topic?
Just to get back on track, how many planes do you think Bomber Command of the RAF would have lost if they sent Lancasters against those targets in broad day light? Honestly!

[45-Shooter]

What is your honest opinion of the two planes if they had been required to swap missions?
No opinion needed. The B17 was used at night by the RAF, and the Lancaster did bomb by day.
Which one had the highest losses durring the day? Right.
Lancs restricted to day light bombing for the entire war and B-17s allowed to bomb at night.
Conceivably, the Lancaster could carry several "Little Boy" weapons. Given the size of 120" x 28" and a weight of 9,000lbs you could get a couple in a standard BIII with the doors closed, and be at a comfortable 18,000lbs. What's your point?
There was no point. It was a silly argument just like many others here. But you are very wrong about the Lanc being able to carry two LBs. They were as you point out 28" wide the lanc bomb bay was not 2X28=56"wide! Plus the inter bomb space when the Lanc was barely wide enough to carry the GS WO the doors! Right. The B-17's bomb bay was wider than the Lancaster's bay.
In reality the B17 was never considered for atomic bombs, where the Lancaster was. It was the logistics that prevented it.Absolutely right!
The lancaster's bomb bay was not nearly tall enough to carry that bomb load.
Whoops. Wrong again. What carriers did the atomic bombs use? "Grand Slam" ones. Guess what aircraft they fit, and what aircraft they don't.
Whoops, wrong again! The carrier, or shackle as we say, has nothing to do with wether the bomb will fit into the plane. GS was 46" OD and barely fit, by the skin of their teeth. The FM was 68"! 60" for the bomb and 4" for the four radar proximity fuzes.
Mission may dictate how much you are required to carry - not how much you can. This is why your argument is pointless. A B17 or a Lancaster may have been ordered to carry a kettle, a cuddly toy and a fondue set, but it doesn't mean its all its capable of.
Exactly my point! To any given range, past that of the full load, the B-17 can carry more pounds of bombs than the Lancaster.
Mission planning has nothing to do with the physical capability of an aircraft.
Whoops, wrong again! Mission planning has everything to do with the physical capacity of the plane. You can not schedual a target that is beyond the planes range, or with more bombs than the plane can carry to that range, or altitude.
so that the average for all missions was ~4,500 pounds for the B-17s and ~7,800 pounds for the Lancaster. If their rolls would have been reversed, the AVERAGE bomb loads would have also been reversed!
No it wouldn't, and they weren't. Lancasters bombed in daylight to Augsburg, and then several other daylight missions later in the war. The loads stay the same, becuase the targets are still as distant, and the aircraft still flies the same regardless of if daylight or not.
Whoops, wrong again! If you are required to switch ALL of the missions, then it is a different story. You can not take heavily escorted late war examples as expressive of the entire war. Look how many Lancs that were lost on early war day time raids. That is why they had to switch to night bombing. Their losses were absolutely un-sustainable. If they had been REQUIRED to continue day light bombing, they would have HAD to add armor, guns and ammo to even try to make it work. That does not count the additional strengthening that would have been required to make the Lancaster less fragile. Remember that this is the part of the argument that you have still not addressed. What happens to average and maximum bomb load when you add the weight of armor, guns ammo and crew to use them? It goes down! So does speed, range and ceiling!

The B-17 was a little lighter empty than the Lancaster; 36,135 Lbs to 36,457 pounds EEW. Yet it carried by most estimates about 4,000 pounds more Armor, guns and ammo at that weight. Then there is the three extra crew and the weight of all their supplies. What happens to the Lancaster when you remove 4,000 plus pounds of bombs to make weight available for weapons armor and ammo? What happens when you take away 600 more pounds for the three extra crew to use those weapons?:ugh: Rich Why you're ignoring this I don't know. I'm beginning to think you have a learning disability. (Cut and past from below?)

The answer is that it does not look nearly so neet does it?:ugh:

Because load and Range are fungible, you can trade one for the other at will, over any but the shortest ranges. Because the B-17 was/is/and always will be more efficient aerodynamically, it will always win that trade off at any but the shortest ranges. Always!

So you keep saying. But I've shown you - the B17 only wins at higher altitudes. If we use the Lancaster at altitudes its happy with (16,000ft) rather than try and force it up higher, its happy to carry 22,000lbs up there for 1600 miles. PS. Where did you get this range with that load?

But you forget that altitude is also fungible!:ugh: If the B-17 were flown down low, it would carry more weight to longer ranges than the Lancaster. The more streamlined plane and better, more efficient engines do not get less stream lined and less efficient down low. ( Technically the turbos do get slightly less efficient, but not enough to make any difference in this example!)
The USAF manuals give figures for the B17 consistently less than that... 17,600lbs for 1000miles or so at 16,000ft.
With external loads. What about all internal loads of eight 2,000 pounders to 1250 miles at 20,200'? Or four 4,000 pound MC bombs to 1,310 miles at 20,500'? Why choose the worst case and beat it against the best case?
If we look at longer ranges, the B17 was down to 4,000lbs at its most stretched. By comparison the longest Lancaster missions were still carrying 9,000lbs at 2,000 miles. (East Kirkby - Munich, 630 Sqn, 1944)
Exactly when was this mission and what were the details? Depending on the exact details, I get about 660 miles each way. My math skills are limited, but that seems a lot closer to 1,320 miles than 2,000?
Why you're ignoring this I don't know. I'm beginning to think you have a learning disability.

Because of that aerodynamic advantage it will always fly higher at any given weight.

Read above. It doesn't. At comparative loads to the Lancaster, its inferior at the same altitudes. Its only superior at high altitude; and only then because the Lancaster can't get to them. Up to its ceiling the Lanc outperforms the B17 in payload and range.
Only when you site the B-17 with external loads and the Lanc with out.
These two facts are not in dispute.

They are not facts. They're your opinion. The facts are what you find in manuals, books, and real life, not in your posts - and you've been proved wrong repeatedly.
I know! I have all the realivant books. I have searched more on line and they all say the same thing. The B-17 was the more efficient plane. (At any altitude and weight!)
You keep going back to the various placard numbers, but you have never explained why the Lancaster could carry 18,000 pounds but could only AVERAGE less than 8000 pounds per mission?

Maybe the multitude There is no multitude of other missions! Mines count as bombs on the total listed. So do "Special Payloads". All of those other missions after the war do not count either. Out of the 608K Missions, exactly how many do you claim were counted in the total, but dropped no bombs?
The explanation is simple. The aircraft's capability is what it can truly carry, not what it is ordered to carry!
You are right and what it could carry to the ranges and altitudes required was about 7,800 pounds per mission. But if it had been required to operate in day light for 100% of it's missions, that would have been reduced to something much less. You tell me how much less.
On the other hand, if the B-17 had to fly 100% of it's missions at night, how much more could it have carried sans armor, guns, ammo and three crew and their supplies?

You tell me.
PS. see this link for some more realistic, but less flatering numbers. Avro Lancaster - Great Britain (http://www.aviation-history.com/avro/683.html)

[longer ron]

Its a long post for a troll innit :ok:

[Weheka]

"Good one! I am the first to admit that my CFS rotted brain is not the best around. I do not have a clue what I was thinking?"

Please.....say no more, and be careful with that 45.....shooter!

[GQ2]

The pro's and cons of the B17 and the Lanc are obvious. When the RAF tried daylight bombing against the Luftwaffe early in the war, they soon gave it up as a bad job, except under special circumstances. The point was underlined by the Luftwaffes inability of even hundreds of fighters to defend a small force of bombers later in the BoB. When the USAAF arrived years later, they ignored the facts, - they insisted that they could defend themselves, and were roundly trounced by even the depleted Jagdwaffe. Only a large fighter force could emeliorate the losses. Later in the war, even when the Luftwaffe was on it's knees, the USAAF daylight losses were severe.
The real issue is none of the above. A Mosquito could carry a B17's load, faster, higher and usually further, for a fraction of the industrial effort. Lastly, the Mossie losses were a fraction of the four-engined heavies. The slaughter of the latter was suppressed not only during the war, but for a long time afterwards. Had the equivalent industrial effort been put into Mossies, as it was into the four-engined heavies, then the German defences would have been overwhelmed, and many aircrew lives saved.
The same entrenched views that tried to stifle the Mosquito clung to the older ideas that ensured heavy-bomber production.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Really interesting thread. But...

You keep going back to the various placard numbers, but you have never explained why the Lancaster could carry 18,000 pounds but could only AVERAGE less than 8000 pounds per mission?

Well, erm...

But none of that is applicable because it was Mission Planning that made both planes carry much less, so that the average for all missions was ~4,500 pounds for the B-17s and ~7,800 pounds for the Lancaster.

:D

[Weheka]

"And down here in the basement folks is where we keep............ "

( under a single dim light bulb, a solitary figure hunched over a computer, typing furiously, surrounded by screeds of paper and old books, various aircraft models etc etc.:confused: )

"....we think he may have gone mad!"

[Brewster Buffalo]

Had the equivalent industrial effort been put into Mossies, as it was into the four-engined heavies, then the German defences would have been overwhelmed, and many aircrew lives saved.


Interesting though -

Would it have been possible to produce Mosquitoes in the number required - eg enough materials,machinery etc etc

Would its use as the main bomber have accelerated the development of the Me262 to counter it?

[Weheka]

I think you are right about the Mosquito being a better option than the Lancs, Hallies etc, although I wonder with the much more complex construction and the skills required wether they would have been able to produce the required number to do the job.

However when the Mosquito could do two return trips to Berlin and back in one night ( probably during winters long nights ) you get some idea of their potential. Also if the loss rate was able to be kept low because of the Mosquitoes capabilities then they would not be required to be produced in the same numbers as the heavies were.

[Load Toad]

If there was only the Mossies to counter - the Nazi's would have been able to concentrate on defending against only one threat....?

[Wageslave]

much more complex construction

Was it? I'd have thought laminatng wood over concrete moulds was potentially much simpler than at that faffing around with metal and rivets, plus the ability to fit it out inside "in the half" before sticking the bits together. Skills? Most of the aircraft factory floor workers were HO and minimally trained, was that a problem? I can see that this method doesn't lend itself to mass production in the same way - perhaps that was the limiting factor? I'm not up on Mossie industrial production problems!

As for two trips to Berlin in a night - that's a long day in modern jet with 30 minute turnarounds - granted you miss those at the destination in this case but even so it sounds a bit over ambitious to say the least.

[Load Toad]

Nope - apparently it was possible & I've read it in several books.

[Brewster Buffalo]

The Mosquito was also in demand in other commands. Out the first 250 produced 10 went for photo-recce, 180 to fighter command with 60 left for Bomber Command.

On the positive side you saved on crew and engines..

[DHfan]

The Mosquito took sub-contracting to extremes, down to groups in garden sheds. A lot of the main structure was built by furniture manufacturers who presumably hadn't got much else to do.
It always surprises me that they were able to source the timber throughout the war. I don't know if there ever was a shortage but that could be a limiting factor for increasing production.

[Oldbutnotwise]

<<Conceivably, the Lancaster could carry several "Little Boy" weapons. Given the size of 120" x 28" and a weight of 9,000lbs you could get a couple in a standard BIII with the doors closed, and be at a comfortable 18,000lbs. What's your point?
There was no point. It was a silly argument just like many others here. But you are very wrong about the Lanc being able to carry two LBs. They were as you point out 28" wide the lanc bomb bay was not 2X28=56"wide! Plus the inter bomb space when the Lanc was barely wide enough to carry the GS WO the doors! Right. The B-17's bomb bay was wider than the Lancaster's bay.>>

it amazes me how you twist facts, why would you load them side by side when you had the length of the bay?

<< In reality the B17 was never considered for atomic bombs, where the Lancaster was. It was the logistics that prevented it.Absolutely right!
The lancaster's bomb bay was not nearly tall enough to carry that bomb load.>>

the little boy was smaller diameter than the 4000lbs blockbusters and the Lanc carried them internally!
.
<<Whoops, wrong again! The carrier, or shackle as we say, has nothing to do with wether the bomb will fit into the plane.
GS was 46" OD and barely fit, by the skin of their teeth. The FM was 68"! 60" for the bomb and 4" for the four radar proximity fuzes.>>

yet the posters referes to the little boy not the fatman again you use misdirection


<Whoops, wrong again! Mission planning has everything to do with the physical capacity of the plane.
You can not schedual a target that is beyond the planes range, or with more bombs than the plane can carry to that range, or altitude.
so that the average for all missions was ~4,500 pounds for the B-17s and ~7,800 pounds for the Lancaster.
If their rolls would have been reversed, the AVERAGE bomb loads would have also been reversed!>>

as pointed out on other sites where you tried this rubbish that the Lanc bomb load was bombs, incendaries were NOT included in this total, and they often amounted to 3/4 of the load


<<But you forget that altitude is also fungible! If the B-17 were flown down low,
it would carry more weight to longer ranges than the Lancaster. The more streamlined plane and better,
more efficient engines do not get less stream lined and less efficient down low. ( Technically the turbos do get slightly less efficient,
but not enough to make any difference in this example!)
The USAF manuals give figures for the B17 consistently less than that... 17,600lbs for 1000miles or so at 16,000ft.>>

are you aware that the maximum internal bomb load of the B17 was 8000lbs? no matter what you do you cannot get round this little fact, and that is only when the internal tankage was not used, if 1 internal tank was used then the Maximum Bomb load internally was 4000lbs.
the Maximum load carried on any 8th AAF raid during ww2 was 8000lbs, there is no record of external racks being used in actual raids and the majority of B17s were either never fitted with them or they were removed when they reached the UK

the B17 couldnt even drop the 4000lbs US bombs as they would not fit internally and caused handling problems externally, in fact i cannot find any reference of any us plane dropping these 4000lbs bomb

<<Because of that aerodynamic advantage it will always fly higher at any given weight.>>
unless you want more than 8000lbs then the external load made a real mess of its aerodyamics

<<They are not facts. They're your opinion. The facts are what you find in manuals, books, and real life, not in your posts - and you've been proved wrong repeatedly.
I know! I have all the realivant books. I have searched more on line and they all say the same thing. The B-17 was the more efficient plane. (At any altitude and weight!)
You keep going back to the various placard numbers, but you have never explained why the Lancaster could carry 18,000 pounds but could only AVERAGE less than 8000 pounds per mission? >>
you have been been shown that the reason was a combination of mine laying, food drops, leaflets and the fact that incendaries were not included in the total

<<Maybe the multitude There is no multitude of other missions! Mines count as bombs on the total listed. So do "Special Payloads". All of those other missions after the war do not count either. Out of the 608K Missions, exactly how many do you claim were counted in the total, but dropped no bombs?
The explanation is simple. The aircraft's capability is what it can truly carry, not what it is ordered to carry!
You are right and what it could carry to the ranges and altitudes required was about 7,800 pounds per mission. But if it had been required to operate in day light for 100% of it's missions, that would have been reduced to something much less. You tell me how much less.
On the other hand, if the B-17 had to fly 100% of it's missio
ns at night, how much more could it have carried sans armor, guns, ammo and three crew and their supplies?>>

well without external load I would say 8000lbs as this was the max capacity of its internal bomb bay, 8x 1000lbs or 4x 2000lbs or 16 500lbs were the options so even with weight to spare it would be 8000lbs unless you were going to toss them out of the back door

[45-Shooter]

<<Conceivably, the Lancaster could carry several "Little Boy" weapons. Given the size of 120" x 28" and a weight of 9,000lbs you could get a couple in a standard BIII with the doors closed, and be at a comfortable 18,000lbs. What's your point?
There was no point. It was a silly argument just like many others here. But you are very wrong about the Lanc being able to carry two LBs. They were as you point out 28" wide the lanc bomb bay was not 2X28=56"wide! Plus the inter bomb space when the Lanc was barely wide enough to carry the GS WO the doors! Right. The B-17's bomb bay was wider than the Lancaster's bay.>>

it amazes me how you twist facts, why would you load them side by side when you had the length of the bay? Because of weight and balance factors, it is not possible to carry two ~9000 pound bombs end to end in the Lancaster or any other plane but the B-29 at the time. Bombs heavier than 4000 pounds could only be carried at one location in the very long, but narrow bay. The bomb's center of mass must be at that location, regardless of their weight. If you wanted to load 2000 pounders, then you were restricted to the part of the bay centered near the 25% MAC. This is because if the maximum bomb load that might fit was loaded and one at the back hung up, failed to release as you proper english say, the plane would crash because the CoG limits were exceeded in a big, 2000 pound way!
<Whoops, wrong again! Mission planning has everything to do with the physical capacity of the plane.
You can not schedual a target that is beyond the planes range, or with more bombs than the plane can carry to that range, or altitude.
so that the average for all missions was ~4,500 pounds for the B-17s and ~7,800 pounds for the Lancaster.
If their rolls would have been reversed, the AVERAGE bomb loads would have also been reversed!>>

as pointed out on other sites where you tried this rubbish that the Lanc bomb load was bombs, incendaries were NOT included in this total, and they often amounted to 3/4 of the loadNot true! Incendaries were counted!

are you aware that the maximum internal bomb load of the B17 was 8000lbs? That was a choice made at command level to meet mission requirements. The two bays had room for two ~4,000 pounders, one over the other, ~16,000 pounds total. It could also carry four 2,000 pound GP bombs on each side, also ~16,000 pounds internal. It was also possible to carry 34 X 440 pound incendaries bombs internally, not that they ever did. But that was a choice they made to ensure that the mission was flown at higher altitude to avoid flack and limit Nazi fighter access.

You are right and what it could carry to the ranges and altitudes required was about 7,800 pounds per mission. But if it had been required to operate in day light for 100% of it's missions, that would have been reduced to something much less. You tell me how much less.
On the other hand, if the B-17 had to fly 100% of it's missio
ns at night, how much more could it have carried sans armor, guns, ammo and three crew and their supplies?>>

well without external load I would say 8000lbs as this was the max capacity of its internal bomb bay, 8x 1000lbs or 4x 2000lbs or 16 500lbs were the options so even with weight to spare it would be 8000lbs unless you were going to toss them out of the back door
The bomb bay had 42 shackle positions. If the bomb was small enough in diameter, all of them could be used. I have pictures someplace of a bunch of B-17s dropping 34 X 440 pound incendiaries each. You can count each individual bomb! Bomb loads less than these weights were a consideration of mission planning to meet altitude and range goals.

[Oldbutnotwise]

<<Conceivably, the Lancaster could carry several "Little Boy" weapons. Given the size of 120" x 28" and a weight of 9,000lbs you could get a couple in a standard BIII with the doors closed, and be at a comfortable 18,000lbs. What's your point?
There was no point. It was a silly argument just like many others here. But you are very wrong about the Lanc being able to carry two LBs. They were as you point out 28" wide the lanc bomb bay was not 2X28=56"wide! Plus the inter bomb space when the Lanc was barely wide enough to carry the GS WO the doors! Right. The B-17's bomb bay was wider than the Lancaster's bay.>>

it amazes me how you twist facts, why would you load them side by side when you had the length of the bay? Because of weight and balance factors, it is not possible to carry two ~9000 pound bombs end to end in the Lancaster or any other plane but the B-29 at the time. Bombs heavier than 4000 pounds could only be carried at one location in the very long, but narrow bay. The bomb's center of mass must be at that location, regardless of their weight. If you wanted to load 2000 pounders, then you were restricted to the part of the bay centered near the 25% MAC. This is because if the maximum bomb load that might fit was loaded and one at the back hung up, failed to release as you proper english say, the plane would crash because the CoG limits were exceeded in a big, 2000 pound way!

As the lanc often carried 2000lbs at each end of the bays I will ask for evidence of this, whilst it is a pointless argument anyway as exactly how many liitle men were actually made? I will agree however that such a bomb load would make it extreamly dangerous to fly It is certainly possible to load it, and as a B17 could not take a single little man I dont think it a relavent argument anyway.

<Whoops, wrong again! Mission planning has everything to do with the physical capacity of the plane.
You can not schedual a target that is beyond the planes range, or with more bombs than the plane can carry to that range, or altitude.
so that the average for all missions was ~4,500 pounds for the B-17s and ~7,800 pounds for the Lancaster.
If their rolls would have been reversed, the AVERAGE bomb loads would have also been reversed!>>

as pointed out on other sites where you tried this rubbish that the Lanc bomb load was bombs, incendaries were NOT included in this total, and they often amounted to 3/4 of the loadNot true! Incendaries were counted!
No they wern't and just saying they were does not change that fact
are you aware that the maximum internal bomb load of the B17 was 8000lbs? That was a choice made at command level to meet mission requirements. The two bays had room for two ~4,000 pounders, one over the other, ~16,000 pounds total. It could also carry four 2,000 pound GP bombs on each side, also ~16,000 pounds internal. It was also possible to carry 34 X 440 pound incendaries bombs internally, not that they ever did. But that was a choice they made to ensure that the mission was flown at higher altitude to avoid flack and limit Nazi fighter access.

According to official US figures the MAXIMUM bomb load carried by a combat mission in europe was 8000lbs, figures for the B17 state that MAXIMUM internal load was 8000lbs, the Bomb bay only had room for 4x 2000lbs so how do you think they fitted 4x4000lbs? (oh and the shackels were only rated to 2000lbs and they only had 4 of these ) so this is pure bunkham


it would seem that this is incorrect, the B17 was only capable of carrying 2x2000lbs (although it could squeeze in a a pair of 1000lbs as well)

the 4000lbs were external only and limited to 2

B-17 bomb bay (http://www.scribd.com/doc/43594420/B-17-bomb-bay)


In addition the 4000lbs would not physically fit in the bay, it was not rated as a bomb that was availible for internal use on the B17 and thier is no record of it ever having beeing used (either internally or externally) despite intelligence that the US bombs were ineffective against factories


You are right and what it could carry to the ranges and altitudes required was about 7,800 pounds per mission. But if it had been required to operate in day light for 100% of it's missions, that would have been reduced to something much less. You tell me how much less.
On the other hand, if the B-17 had to fly 100% of it's missio
ns at night, how much more could it have carried sans armor, guns, ammo and three crew and their supplies?>>

well without external load I would say 8000lbs as this was the max capacity of its internal bomb bay, 8x 1000lbs or 4x 2000lbs or 16 500lbs were the options so even with weight to spare it would be 8000lbs unless you were going to toss them out of the back door
The bomb bay had 42 shackle positions. If the bomb was small enough in diameter, all of them could be used. I have pictures someplace of a bunch of B-17s dropping 34 X 440 pound incendiaries each. You can count each individual bomb! Bomb loads less than these weights were a consideration of mission planning to meet altitude and range goals.

Rubbish the shackles were different for different bombs and only a few could be used at any time as the bomb bay was SMALL, show me the picture of 34x440 because I call moopoo as USAAF own figures show that this was over 6000lbs more then they claim was the maximum load carried, although going by your previous record I bet that the picture in question (if it ever existed) is of a B29 or even, knowing you a B52.

I remember your claim that a B17 could and did carry two tallboys, so your credibility is non existant

[Weheka]

" Simpler than faffing around with metal and rivets "

I am certainly no expert on how difficult, or easy the two construction methods were. Someone who would have a fair idea is Glynn Powell, who is having a fair bit to do with two flyable mosquito examples currently under construction here in NZ. He has made the moulds himself, and apparently that was no easy task to complete!

[longer ron]

I remember your claim that a B17 could and did carry two tallboys, so your credibility is non existant

He could not even get the number of gun turrets correct.... so not liable to get any other details correct :ok:

The amount of coloured text on this thread is staggering :) any reason why posters are not using the 'Wrap Quote' facility in the toolbar above the reply box ?? the multi coloured posts are a little confusing !

[Oldbutnotwise]

He could not even get the number of gun turrets correct.... so not liable to
get any other details correct http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif


The amount of coloured text on this thread is staggering http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif
any reason why posters are not using the 'Wrap Quote' facility in the toolbar
above the reply box ?? the multi coloured posts are a little confusing
!


sorry was unware and at work so time limited.

as for the Lancaster turrets a couple of things I can comment on,

All canadian Lancs were flown across the atlantic without turrets, these were fitted in the UK and some photos show these ferry planes, in addition due to production problems at Nash & Thomson there were times when turrets supply failed to meet demand, production was prioritied for nose and tail, this meant that some Lancs went into service without a upper turret, some of these bombers were retro fitted with turrets some were not, so while he was right in some respect but for completely the wrong reason (probably a fluke) it is of note that all three mks suffered this shortage yet stirling and halifax's (as far as I can tell) did not

[Noyade]

I'm sure the Mossie could have done it. :ok:

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/2586/img612p.jpg (http://img191.imageshack.us/i/img612p.jpg/)

[DHfan]

...if it wasn't a very big dam...

File:Highball prototypes in Mosquito.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Highball_prototypes_in_Mosquito.jpg)

[Noyade]

the B17 was only capable of carrying 2x2000lbs (although it could squeeze in a a pair of 1000lbs as well)That's the conclusion I've come to. I know the bomb-rails are slightly tapered with more distance between them at the lower end. Pictures show a 2000 lb bomb fitting snugly at the bottom (fin width 23 inches) but the 4000 lb Light Case has a thumping big fin width of 47.62 inches. It's also 9 ft 9 inches long.

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/1433/distancef.jpg (http://img717.imageshack.us/i/distancef.jpg/)
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/917/img614r.jpg (http://img196.imageshack.us/i/img614r.jpg/)
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/6319/img616w.jpg (http://img254.imageshack.us/i/img616w.jpg/)

[longer ron]

All canadian Lancs were flown across the atlantic without turrets, these were fitted in the UK and some photos show these ferry planes, in addition due to production problems at Nash & Thomson there were times when turrets supply failed to meet demand, production was prioritied for nose and tail, this meant that some Lancs went into service without a upper turret, some of these bombers were retro fitted with turrets some were not, so while he was right in some respect but for completely the wrong reason (probably a fluke) it is of note that all three mks suffered this shortage yet stirling and halifax's (as far as I can tell) did not


Yes I agree that some Lancs did not have a top turret but I would say that almost all of the Main Force Lancs did have a Top turret,I have read many autobiographies/reference books etc...the Mid upper turret was the norm,I have never seen a normal Main Force a/c without one - During WW2.
The top turrets tended to be removed postwar and this is where confusion reigns and it is where Bullshooter45 was being disingenuous by posting a photo of PA474 obviously taken over Lincoln in the 1970's.
The BBMF went to great trouble to fit a mid upper turret to PA474 so that it represented the great majority of wartime Lancaster a/c !He was also being disingenuous about the Lancs being 'field modified' because of performance shortfalls

Here is an extract from the raf mod website regarding mid upper/ventral turrets,the last 2 sentences questioning the inexplicable failure to brief the crews about schrage musik and refit a ventral gun,as I previously posted - some crews did fit a scare gun but schrage musik did not seem to be known about by the majority of regular squadron crews...


RAF MOD...The majority of night fighter attacks were made stealthily from astern and below, indeed, with the advent of Schräge Musik, the inclined cannon armament system fitted to German night fighters, the majority of the attacks occurred from almost directly below, completely out of sight of the mid upper gunner. There were some aircraft fitted with belly or ventral gun positions such as the Lancaster Mk II and several versions of the Halifax, but these were not brought into widespread service although many aircraft on the production line were perfectly capable of having them installed. Since it was a simple matter to extrapolate the direction of attack from the damage done to the aircraft which managed to return after being attacked, and several engineers in Bomber Command remarked upon the attack patterns in official reports, it is a matter of conjecture how many lives would have been saved by the deletion of the traditional mid upper turret and the acceptance of ventral positions as the norm in reply to the tactics employed by the German night fighter force. In many late production aircraft the ventral position designed into the Lancaster and Halifax was taken up with the H2S ground mapping radar head.

[Load Toad]

In books I've read about the Bomber force comments are often made that crews were told the German's had scarecrow shells - to mimic falling bombers to scare crews...
I've asked before on PP about Schräge Musik & why crews were not warned nor ventral guns not fitted. On that thread some soul posted images of ventral turrets that were fitted (IIRC mostly Canadian squadrons??).
There have been comments to that Harris wanted to be sure each bomber could carry the maximum amount of bombs on any given operation & thus he wanted the save as much weight as possible.
In hindsight simply having a force half with upper turrets & half with ventral turrets - would mean approaching night fighters would have something to think about.

IF it was officially known Schräge Musik was really bringing down most bombers..?

Edited to add:http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/203535-schrage-musik.html

[longer ron]

The FN64 was useless for night ops,as the gunner did not have direct vision,as I said in an earlier post some crews did have a ventral scare gun (esp the canadians).
Unfortunately the H2S installation precluded refitting a turret in that posn,so a scare gun was the only real option.
The feeling I get from reading Bomber crew autobios is that the majority of the RAF main force crews had no knowledge of upward firing nightfighters,the canadians seeming much more concerned about the obvious vulnerability of underbelly attacks.

rgds LR

[Oldbutnotwise]

the FN64 was a pretty good turret, probably the third best belly turret after the Sperry and B29 GE remote controlled units, however all these proved to be pretty useless at night, it wasnt the guns it was the positioning, being under the bomber meant that was pretty impossible to see an attacking fighter, those bombers fitted with the belly gun show no better survival rates than those without.

I think the decision was made to delete them from production was based on feedback from crews as to thier usability.

As to mainforce using upper turrets, I dont believe that mainforce had any such restrictions, it was purely how they were delivered.

A point about fared over turrets, I did forget one role in which they were used without turrets, all the PR1 photo recon birds were fited without nose and upper (not sure about rear) maybe he means these birds (would explain why they were carrying bombloads similar to b17s flares were quite light compaired to HE

[longer ron]

The great majority of mainforce lancs did have a top turret,I have never seen a photo of a main force lanc without one.
What bullshooter 45 was posting was that the majority of lancs were field modified to remove turrets because of load carrying/performance shortfalls...which is patently nonsense !but then he kept trying to use wiki as a primary source anywayl LOL.
As I posted previously - the photo he posted of a lanc without a top turret was PA474 taken over lincoln in the 1970's

rgds lr

[Oldbutnotwise]

I agree that most Mainforce lancs had a upper turret, in fact most all lancs had them, the point I was making was that most of those that did fly without them were not anything special but were just supply shortages and were treated eaxactly like anyother lanc.

I have NEVER found anything that implied that the turrets were removed, all those without were either specials or supply shortages and all had the turret mods done at the factory.

I was a a talk once given by ex staff at the AVRO factory at Yeadon and this point about turrets came up, they do not remember any Lancs leaving yeadon without a full set. (although they also never fitted belly turrets)

an intertersting story from that talk was of a lanc pilot who told a tail of landing after a Berlin raid to be told that he had flown all the way home withing spitting distance of another Lanc and had never seen anything.

ps shooter has only ever hit a true fact by complete accident, and the fact that the B17 needed to replace half its bomb looad with additional fuel tanks to reach ranges the lancs were doing with 10000+ lbs is upto his usual standard.


pps

Someone mentioned the Mossie and berlin raids, seemingly the mossie had a 2 hour flight time to berlin with a 4000lbs cookie (note that note all the bombs that the mossie carried that looked like the 4000lbs cookie were, a proportion were actually incendaries that used the same case)

[Oldbutnotwise]

As I posted previously - the photo he posted of a lanc without a top turret
was PA474 taken over lincoln in the 1970's



I am only supprised that the pic is of a Lanc, with his record I would have been expecting a manchester or a stirling, even a Condor would have not supprised me

[Weheka]

It seems unbelievable that the High Command knew nothing at all about the deadly Schrage Muzik ( there is a Me 110 tail fin in the Canberra War Memorial whose pilot shot down 7 four engined bombers in 17 mins! ).

I can well understand the crews not being aware of it, but wonder if this information was known, but deliberately kept from them. There wasn't much the people supposedly running the war didn't know.

I think the shooter has finally given up with his bullshooting.

[Brewster Buffalo]

Good article here on schrage muzik

207 Sqn RAF Association - The Wesseling Raid 21/22 June 1944 - Schrage Musik (http://www.207squadron.rafinfo.org.uk/wesseling/wesseling_schrage_musik.htm)

[Weheka]

A piece of a poem by Noel Coward.

"Lie in the dark and listen
City magnates and steel contractors,
Factory workers and politicians
Soft hysterical little actors Ballet dancers,
'reserved' musicians,
Safe in your warm civilian beds
Count your profits and count your sheep
Life is flying above your heads
Just turn over and try to sleep.
Lie in the dark and let them go
Theirs is a world you'll never know
Lie in the dark and listen."

I don't think the debt will ever be paid for the sacrifices those incredibly brave boys made, night after night.

[Dan Winterland]

I think it took a very long time for the effects of schrage musik to filter through, because it was so effective. The crews that encountered it simply didn't come back to tell the tale. The few that might would have not seen their attacker - which would not have been unusual and which would not have aroused suspicion that a new weapon was being used.

Schrage Musik was around earlier than some records suggest. A few nightfighters were unofficially modified before the official policy came into effect. A relative of mine was killed in a Wellington in Jan 1942; one of three shot down in a period of forty minutes by the same Me110 of NJG2 from Leuwaarden. There is evidnce to suggest they were bought down with Schrage Music, but with a twin MG42 installation and not cannon.

[Noyade]

Could the Me-210/410 fire their fuselage cannons upwards, Schrage Musik style?

http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/5792/img638l.jpg (http://img840.imageshack.us/i/img638l.jpg/)

[VX275]

Could the Me-210/410 fire their fuselage cannons upwards, Schrage Musik style?


No, acording to the RAE report I've seen they could only elevate and depress 35 degress from the horizontal and swing laterally about 45 degrees.

[Brewster Buffalo]

Link from another thread of someone recalling their service in operational research for bomber command where he describes their organisation including "ORS2c, studying damage to returning bombers"' The author worked in another section but it would be useful to see ORS2c's records or hear from someone who worked there to see what was known of shcrage musik within the RAF.

A Failure of Intelligence - Technology Review (http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/17724/?a=f)

[Noyade]

they could only elevate and depress 35 degress from the horizontal Thanks. :)

[longer ron]

Brewsters second link gives this interesting paragraph,I could never understand why this was never even trialled on a small scale with Lancs and Stirlings...

Smeed and I agreed that Bomber Command could substantially reduce losses by ripping out two gun turrets, with all their associated hardware, from each bomber and reducing each crew from seven to five. The gun turrets were costly in aerodynamic drag as well as in weight. The turretless bombers would have flown 50 miles an hour faster and would have spent much less time over Germany. The evidence that experience did not reduce losses confirmed our opinion that the turrets were useless. The turrets did not save bombers, because the gunners rarely saw the fighters that killed them. But our proposal to rip out the turrets went against the official mythology of the gallant gunners defending their crewmates. Dickins never had the courage to push the issue seriously in his conversations with Harris. If he had, Harris might even have listened, and thousands of crewmen
might have been saved.

The extra speed would have made Lancs much more difficult to intercept as most enemy night fighters were fitted with draggy radar aerials and performance suffered accordingly

[Load Toad]

It's an interesting debate...how many nightfighters were shot down during the bomber offensive (day & night)?

Apart from crippling Nazi cities, industry, communications, fuel...the loss of trained & good pilots must have massively reduced the capacity of the Luftwaffe to effectively wage war.

[Brewster Buffalo]

Part of his operational research showed that it more dangerous to fly outside the bomber stream but the crews were more worried about collisions within it.
Perhaps removing the turrets would have reduced morale of the crews as they would have had no means of fighting back. Also once the night fighters found out the bombers had no defences wouldn't they have been more aggressive and maybe would not have needed schrage musik??

[longer ron]

Perhaps Brewster but as I posted earlier - if (say) a Lanc was indeed 50mph faster then it would have been more difficult to intercept...many of the german nightfighters were relatively slow through aerial drag and a 50mph faster Lanc might have been difficult to overtake.

[Brewster Buffalo]

or do you not think, if the airplane was lighter without the turrets, Bomber Command may have more likely to have increased the bomb load and so the speed advantage would be lost.

[Oldbutnotwise]

the problem, as i see it, was that handheld guns were pretty useless only a powered turret had any real chance of tracking a fighter,

so replacing the front turret on the halifax went on to try and get the halifax upto lanc performance and then you do it to the Lanc so dropping the halifax back again, plus it would have meant a delay in lanc production something harris would have fought (halifax and stirling he would consider but nothing should delay lancs)

harris wanted shorts and handley Page to crease production and retool for lanc

given the loss rates on the these two compaired to the lanc and you can see his point

[Mr Mac]

My father flew in Halifax,s with 6 Group and his comment on Lancaster and Mosquito and B17 are quite intresting talking to crews in Germay after they had been shot down.

Mosquito
Fantastic aircraft but he was told by a crew who had flown them that they were tricky too fly as has been said earlier, and also IF caught 20mm cannon shells made short work of them. The "IF" comment is the important one as he only talked to 4nr Mosquito pilots during his time behind the wire.

Lancaster
Very good aircraft but survival rate for crew was poor in comparison with Halifax due inpart to the wing spar position. The vast majority of bomber command crews he was inside with were Lancaster men due in part to the numbers flying. The aircraft performance was better than the Halifax and all other RAF heavy bomber types as is well documented. The comments of the crews, bearing in mind what had recently happened to them was more how difficult it was to get out of the thing after being hit rather than its flying ability or bomb load.

B17
Bomb loads were small in comparrison but missions were at high altitude and in daylight as we are all aware. B17 crew always said their aircraft were tough and well built. There was much talk about diffrent tactics ie night / day with one B17 pilot saying to my father "I do not know how you guys fly at night, I like to see where I am going, even if its down !!". Also the moral boost you used to get as a "Kreigie" he said when you looked up to view an 8th Air Force mission on a sunny day was quite somthing.

There has been comments about German nightfighters on this thread and my father met a few as he was taken to a nightfighter base after being shot down. His comment was they were just "like us in age and manerisams" and he met no hostilaty during his time there or indeed during his time inside. Indeed in 2003 with the help of German crash investigators I took him back to the village where he was shot down, and he was introduced to a then young boy who had held his hand back in 1943 to stop him walking back into his burning aircraft as he was blinded by shock for 24hrs after the crash.


In closing I think the planes are not as important as the men who flew them as no matter what side you are on in the Lanc/ Fortress debate the courage required to face a determined and resolute foe can only be admired.

[Brewster Buffalo]

Returning to Schrage Musik - Eyes of the Night is a book describing the air defence of NW England 1940-43 which consisting in the main of non-radar equipped Defiants. These normally operated on moonlit nights detecting enemy aircraft by sight.

The book records 23 combats with Ju88s and He111s resulting in 12 being destroyed. These bombers had ventral gun positions and the Defiants usually attacked from below at distances between 25 to 150 yards. But only on two definite occasions did the bomber fire back and in both cases the Defiant was making a repeat attack. So one is tempted to think that even if the Lancaster had a ventral turret it might have made little difference.

[Romulus]

I agree that most Mainforce lancs had a upper turret, in fact most all lancs had them, the point I was making was that most of those that did fly without them were not anything special but were just supply shortages and were treated eaxactly like anyother lanc.

I have NEVER found anything that implied that the turrets were removed, all those without were either specials or supply shortages and all had the turret mods done at the factory.

From memory Leonard Cheshire had them taken off at 617 along with anything else he could think of to save weight. Paul Brickhill interviewed him about it form memory, details were in Brickhills "Dam Buster" book.

[GQ2]

Belatedly, in reply to the suggestion that producing Mosquitoes was more problematic than all-metal a/c, the answer is an emphatic 'no'. Different, yes, but not more difficult. The facts are all there. Production was well - dispersed, and Mosquitoes were also built in Australia & Canada with no big problem.
It's also well-worth pointing-out that most German night-fighteres couldn't even CATCH a Mosquito, much-less shoot it down. That's not saying it didn't happen of course.
There was a surprising amount of agreement that switching to a mainly Mosquito force would be logical, but there were a lot of (in)-vested interests too.......
I think the argument was pretty unasailable. That's not to say that the four-engined heavies didn't have a place for some roles of course.

BTW;- A chap I knew did several tours on Lanc's, and he said they were well aware of the Schragemuzik.

[sevenstrokeroll]

am I mistaken or did the lancaster only have ONE pilot?

looking at bombload is not the only way to appreciate a bomber. nor speed for a fighter. everyone says the spit was a great dogfighter...but its range was limited.

the zero was a great dogfighter but if you sneezed at it hard enough it would fall apart.

the P47 had air conditioning!

And my DC9 had three beautiful flight attendants!

and JIMMY doolittle , that brilliant man, who along with the wrights,and lindbergh woud be on my aviation Mt Rushmore, figured out that the P38 lightning could carry almost the same bombload to Germany as the B17, and once the bombs were gone could battle the german fighters on the way back...indeed some P38's had a bombardier's glass nose and the rest of the P38's would just pickle on the lead.

[Load Toad]

Lancasters (all heavies I think) had one pilot. I think iirc early in the war Harris / the RAF took the decision to have one pilot simply because two pilots should be flying two 'planes not one.
Obviously for training reasons etc sometimes a second pilot flew in t'other seat (flight engineers seat I guess). I understand from reading several books it was not uncommon for the flight engineer to receive some flying training so in the event of the pilot being incapacitated there was a chance the FE could get the 'plane back. I'm not sure at all how common this was nor how 'successful'.

[Plastic Bonsai]

As an air cadet I was on a coach trip to RAF Hendon in the mid 70's and sat next to an ex-Lancaster crewman. We chatted and he told me that that one day they hosted an American Squadron's personnel.

He was just climbing out of a Lancaster with a party of Americans when he heard the rising tones of four Merlins at full throttle, and looking up saw a Lancaster diving earthwards. It was one of the squadron aircraft with several American guests on board. All stopped to watch as the nose slowly rose and the aircraft soared up and over in a loop.

In the stunned silence that followed one of the Americans turned to him and said, "Is that a bomber or a fighter?"

[losch]

Yes, the lancaster was a much better load carrier then the B-17. There is one at the Warplane Heritage Museum in Hamilton, Ontario Canada that is in flying condition. Recently, a B-17-Sentimental Journey paid a visit to the museum, and I compared the bomb bays. The lancaster was three times bigger than the B-17 and could easily fit the cookie bomb.

[Rob Boyter]

The first daytime raid on Berlin was carried out by Mosquitos on 30 Jan 1943.

"A prelude to the 1943 raids came from the De Havilland Mosquito (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito), which hit the capital on 30 January 1943. That same day, both Göring (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_G%C3%B6ring) and Goebbels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels) were known to be giving big speeches that were to be broadcast live by radio. At precisely 11.00 am, Mosquitoes of No. 105 Squadron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._105_Squadron_RAF) arrived over Berlin exactly on time to disrupt Göring’s speech. Later that day, No. 139 Squadron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._139_Squadron_RAF) repeated the trick for Goebbels."
Naturally Hitler's birthday merited the same treatment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Berlin_in_World_War_II
The "pregnant" version of the Mosquito with an enlarged bomb bay was used to carry the 4000lb SC cookie, a completely unaerodynamic bomb designed purely as a blast and structural destruction bomb. That was the same bomb load as the B-17 to Berlin. Mosquitos were sufficiently fast that they suffered far less losses than the B-17 on average.
Imagine a 1000 plane raid made up only of Mosquitos. Losses there would have been but not as many as either the Lancs by night or the B-17 by day.
The only trouble would be keeping up the number of pilots, but switching everyone into Mosquitos would have completely overwhelmed the Luftwaffe. Quite a number of Lancaster pilots wangled postings to Mosquito squadrons. The other part of the story is that Night fighter Mosquitos could have been mixed in and severely damaged the Night Fighter force of the Luftwaffe.
Then send the day raiders accompanied by Mustangs once they reached sufficient numbers, (later 1943).
Can you say Nightmare Alley. Oh if it had only happened.

[Ashley Pomeroy]

My Granfather 'acquired' a Mosquito due to engine failure. He had a farm in Norfolk and one night in 1944 (I think) an aircraft crashed nearby. My mother remembers hearing an aircraft crash that night ...

... in 1975, my Grandfather decided to drain a patch of Fen which had never been touched which was only half a mile from the farmhouse. It turned out to be a Mosquito which had taken off from Great Massingham (I think) on a raid to Germany. ... It had been listed as 'Missing in Action' so it was not known where it had come down and it probably wasn't suspected that it had crashed so close to home.

The wreck was complete with crew and armament and gave the RAF bomb disposal crew some problems dealing with the bombs due to their being partly submerged in a bog.

It's an old message, but this has haunted me for ages. It must have been horrible for the families, not knowing for thirty years what happened to the pilots, especially given that they disappeared over the UK.

In a situation like that how would the families be notified of the recovery of the crew? A telephone call or letter seems impersonal but the thought of an officer appearing at the door in 1975 is odd.

[Heathrow Harry]

If a body was discovered it would probably take some time to ID it - maybe they'd ask the family for a DNA Sample

In general this sort of thing is handled by the Police in the first instance

[Dan Winterland]

It's an old message, but this has haunted me for ages. It must have been horrible for the families, not knowing for thirty years what happened to the pilots, especially given that they disappeared over the UK.

In a situation like that how would the families be notified of the recovery of the crew? A telephone call or letter seems impersonal but the thought of an officer appearing at the door in 1975 is odd.

The crew were from Eastern Europe - Polish or Czech, I don't recall which. The pilot's family (a noble family) were contacted. The Nav's, there was no trace of IIRC. This was in the mid 70s when the country was still the other side of the iron Curtain.

If a body was discovered it would probably take some time to ID it - maybe they'd ask the family for a DNA Sample


No DNA sampling in those days. But they had their dog tags on them - which is their function. I don't recall if the Police were involved, I suspect they were. But the aircraft still had live ordinance which was the pressing issue.

The aircraft was listed as missing in action and therefore it was not known where it came down.

[piperpa46]

They recently found a Messerschmitt in Denmark with the pilots remains still in the aircraft. There was no living relatives to announce it to, but it sounds like they would have done it from this article.
I am not sure I would categorize it as odd sending an officer, even though it is 30 or 70 years after the fact.
https://www.thelocal.de/20170324/pilot-from-crashed-denmark-ww2-aircraft-identified

[TEEEJ]

From a search on the web, Dan.

Date: 23-NOV-1944
Type : de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito NF Mk II
Owner/operator: 1692 (BSTU) Flt RAF
Registration: DD736

Spun into ground nr Kings Lynn Norfolk 23.11.44 Aircraft seen spiralling out of cloud, righted itself then spun into the ground at East Winch, Norfolk.

Crew:
F/O (J/18833 ) Charles James PREECE (pilot) RCAF - killed
F/O (175.408) Frederick Henry RUFFLE DFC (nav) RAFVR - killed

From

ASN Aircraft accident 23-NOV-1944 de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito NF Mk II DD736 (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=70848)

See following links for further details and input from the then Engineering Director of the East Anglian Aviation Society.

Mosquito DD736 Kings Lynn 23/11/44 (http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?104516-Mosquito-DD736-Kings-Lynn-23-11-44)

Pilot Officer Charles Preece (http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?21390-Pilot-Officer-Charles-Preece)