Halifax v Lancaster
Thread Starter
Halifax v Lancaster
Why exactly is the Lancaster so much more famous than the Halifax? I appreciate that the Stirling wasn't as good as the other two, but what was the advantage of the Lancaster over the Halifax?
Or was it simply that there were more of them?
Or was it simply that there were more of them?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ashwell, U.K.
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may have got this entirely wrong but I believe "Bomber" Harris took a dislike to the Halifax due to it's early problems when it was brought into service and he actively tried to stop the programme. However Lancaster production couldn't be ramped up to cover the shortfall and the Halifax came good with development. I can imagine what that did to the morale of the Halifax crews. There is probably an element of the Spitfire v Hurricane argument in here and the fact is that all four aircraft were essential componenets of the eventual victory.
The Mark I & II Halifaxes were the counterparts of the Avro Manchester. They were less dog-like than the appalling Manchester but had their share of problems mostly being underpowered and suffering from rudder stalls. When the Mark III Halifax came on the scene with it's Hercules engines replacing the Merlins of the underpowered Marks I & II and the square fins replacing the lock prone triangular fins it was the equal of the Lancaster. The only advantage the Lancaster had over the Halibag III was the long bomb bay which could carry the 12,000lb Tallboy and 18,000lb(?) Grand Slam bombs. The biggest single bomb the Hali could carry was the 8,000lb "Cookie". In terms of weight lifting ability, range, speed, cruising altitude etc. they were on a par.
The Halifax was also used as a glider tug, freighter, paradropper, long range ocean patroller. The Hali was also easier to escape from with 2.4 crewmembers exiting successfully compared to 1.8 from the Lanc.
Unlike the Spit v Hurricane where the Spit was more capable of development, the Lanc was more famous than the Hali because it was a prettier aeroplane. Bit like the B-17/B-24 scenario really.
PS I'm not biased cos my dad was a Flight Engineer on Halifaxes, honest
The Halifax was also used as a glider tug, freighter, paradropper, long range ocean patroller. The Hali was also easier to escape from with 2.4 crewmembers exiting successfully compared to 1.8 from the Lanc.
Unlike the Spit v Hurricane where the Spit was more capable of development, the Lanc was more famous than the Hali because it was a prettier aeroplane. Bit like the B-17/B-24 scenario really.
PS I'm not biased cos my dad was a Flight Engineer on Halifaxes, honest
Last edited by LowNSlow; 27th Feb 2004 at 04:05.
Gentleman Aviator
IIRC the Halifax flew with 2 pilots, whereas the Lanc had 1 pilot and 1 flight engineer. Could that have been a factor? I guess flight engs were easier/cheaper/quicker to train. [Please do not interpret this as any criticism of flt engs!]
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Were the early model Halifaxes used for training? I remember talking to a Lancaster flight engineer a few years ago and he said that during WW2 training Halifaxes were crashing regularly - "making big holes all over Yorkshire", as he put it. Rudder stall?
SSD
SSD
teeteringhead Halifaxes were pilot and flight engineer as was the Lanc.
A lot of Lanc pilots were scathing about the Halifax because they didn't realise that the Mark III was nothing like the clapped out underpowered MArk I & II's that they had used in the Heavy Conversion Units.
A lot of Lanc pilots were scathing about the Halifax because they didn't realise that the Mark III was nothing like the clapped out underpowered MArk I & II's that they had used in the Heavy Conversion Units.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Farnborough, Hants
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm pretty sure the Halifax was single pilot. It served in a greater variety of roles than the Lanc did. Its only shortcoming was the bomb bay not being able to accomodate the "super" bombs which came along later in the war. That was no fault of the designers as such bombs were not envisaged at the time the specifications were set by the Air Ministry. Indeed, the Lancaster only ended up with a suitable bomb bay because its predecessor, the Manchester, was intended to be a torpedo dropping aircraft (to replace the Hampden in that role).
I read somewhere that Roy Chadwick designed the Lanc around the 30' long 'hole' that was the bombay. A man of vision indeed.
Still, on daily & nightly routine bombing, it made no odds as the most prevalent weapons 4,000 lb cookies, 1,000 lb GP and incendiaries could be carried by all, ie Stirlings, Mossies, Wellingtons, Lancs and Halibags
Still, on daily & nightly routine bombing, it made no odds as the most prevalent weapons 4,000 lb cookies, 1,000 lb GP and incendiaries could be carried by all, ie Stirlings, Mossies, Wellingtons, Lancs and Halibags
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Lancs, UK
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A number of RAF wartime autobiographies, including Jack Currie's excellent 'Lancaster Target' mention the higher proportional losses occurred by Halifax crews due to the lower operational height over target ( a good 5000') and consequently more accurate flak. Halifax however, was considered to be a good glider tug, especially by thos poor unfortunates who had to fly Albemarles and Whitleys!
Cat S unfortunately this does continue the myth of the Lanc over the Halibag. Don't forget that it helps the crews morale (even subconciously) if they think there is some poor sod copping the flak before it gets to them. If you compare like with like ie Hali I & II with the Manchester and the Hali III with the Lanc the performance differences are negligable. The difference in the Merline engined Halis and the Hercules ones is huge. The simple truth is that the Halifax III was the equal of the Lancaster in operational terms, but the Halifax name had been tainted by it's underpowered ancestors. Plus the Lanc is prettier!
PS the stats don't back up the figures you quote:
The Heavy Bomber Groups break down as:
1 Group (Lancasters) - 2.5%
4 Group (Halifaxes) - 2.6%
5 Group (Lancasters) - 2.7%
Again, these figures are slightly skewed because they include the typw used in the bomber offensive build up ie Hampdens, Whitleys, Wellingtons, Blenheims etc.
The training losses are horrendous though:
OCU (Wellingtons) - 2.9%
HCU (Stirlings & early Halifaxes) - 7.9% which reflects the fact that there were inexperienced crews flying clapped out aircraft with seriously dubious training practices eg two engined (on the same side) overshoots in a Halifax I........
PS the stats don't back up the figures you quote:
The Heavy Bomber Groups break down as:
1 Group (Lancasters) - 2.5%
4 Group (Halifaxes) - 2.6%
5 Group (Lancasters) - 2.7%
Again, these figures are slightly skewed because they include the typw used in the bomber offensive build up ie Hampdens, Whitleys, Wellingtons, Blenheims etc.
The training losses are horrendous though:
OCU (Wellingtons) - 2.9%
HCU (Stirlings & early Halifaxes) - 7.9% which reflects the fact that there were inexperienced crews flying clapped out aircraft with seriously dubious training practices eg two engined (on the same side) overshoots in a Halifax I........
Last edited by LowNSlow; 23rd Mar 2004 at 11:03.
I remember reading somewhere, although unfortunately not precisely where, that a parachute abandonment was more difficult from the Lancater than from the Halifax for some crew members, especially the pilot. Anyone any references to support this?
Lomcevak the Lanc was more difficult to escape from. Exercising my sometimes fuzzy memory I think the figures were 1.8 crew members managed to escape from a crippled Lancaster compared to 2.4 from a Halifax.
