Just could not resist?
 

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

"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.

If 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

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

Here's one:

http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/u...ng_29/B-17.jpg

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

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

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

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?

No Racks Required
 

:ok:

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/1314/img585.jpg

Found some...

351st BS - Page 28

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/824/48785951.jpg

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

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

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?

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

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!

The bloke is a troll matey - ignore the troll.

Dyslexia???
 

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!

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

Its a long post for a troll innit :ok:

"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!

The More Telling Facts.
 

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.

Really interesting thread. But...

Well, erm...

:D

"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!"

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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..

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.

<<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.

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.
No they wern't and just saying they were does not change that factAccording 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

[edit]
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
[/edit]

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

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

" 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!

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 !

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

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

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/2586/img612p.jpg

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

File:Highball prototypes in Mosquito.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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://img196.imageshack.us/img196/917/img614r.jpg
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/6319/img616w.jpg

Re Gun Turrets
 

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...

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-histo...age-musik.html