BBMF Lanc Engine Fire
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chesterfield
Age: 42
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Lancaster had a greater tendency to break up in mid air than the better built Halifax.
The end result of the overbuilt nature was the ability to carry the 22,000lb Grand Slam.
There's a few well known losses due to issues with wingtips and the tailplane, but they were ironed out fairly quickly and not half as destructive as the whole series of Halifax that had uncontrollable rudder issues.
Somewhere in that wonderful thread
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...evet-ww11.html
the late Reg Lewis (regle) compares the Lancaster and Halifax from a pilot's viewpoint. I seem to remember that, having spent most of his heavy bomber time in the Halifax, he felt much safer in it than in the Lanc. Although the Lanc was a much nicer aircraft to fly he was better protected.
I have tried to find the actual post but there are too many posts to wade through.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...evet-ww11.html
the late Reg Lewis (regle) compares the Lancaster and Halifax from a pilot's viewpoint. I seem to remember that, having spent most of his heavy bomber time in the Halifax, he felt much safer in it than in the Lanc. Although the Lanc was a much nicer aircraft to fly he was better protected.
I have tried to find the actual post but there are too many posts to wade through.
What's your source for that? By most accounts the Lancaster was the better built; partly due to the Manchester being designed to cope with a catapult assisted take off.
and not half as destructive as the whole series of Halifax that had uncontrollable rudder issues
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chesterfield
Age: 42
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little known PhD thesis published by the University of Toronto Press, and I'd suggest if he'd gone through something like Bruce Robertsons excellent book which details the fate of each and every Manchester and Lancaster by serial number, or contacted Avro Heritage the author would have a better idea of how many were lost due to structural failure and break up in mid air - which is not that many.
I'd also suggest that his statistics are skewed, as by the time bombers were getting hit hard by the introduction of things such as "Schräge
Musik" and blowing up (not breaking up); there were a greater number of Lancasters on night bombing against Halifaxes.
He takes great and lengthy effort to highlight reports on Lancaster losses, yet quickly passes over similar data on the Halifax stability and performance issues - which were a concern for crews in combat. The early mark Halifax (as per my earlier comment) had rudder over balance issues and crews didn't like the idea of carrying out a corkscrew as it was known to often lead to a loss of control with the rudder jammed at its limit to port or starboard. He also conveniently skims over the point that certain Halifax units had consistently greater losses than any other Bomber Command unit - with no single known cause. The losses in numbers of Lancaster crew were accepted at the time against the job it could do, which was why it was concentrated on and the Halifax and Stirling slowly phased out to other roles.
In terms of the aircraft rather than the operations;
Show me a Halifax that was stressed for catapult launch. Show me a Halifax that could carry the same weight of payload. Show me a Halifax that could carry as varied a payload - including specialist weapons. Show me a Halifax that didn't present itself as an easy target for night fighters by way of its glowing exhausts (in Merlin and Hercules) or its performance issues (cured by armament stripping). Show me a Halifax that could go as deep into the Reich territory and back again as a Lancaster. Show me one that could get back after losing as many engines to enemy action.
You won't.
Despite playing with statistics to match whatever agenda the author of that thesis wished to suit, the Lancaster was the better all round aircraft. This is why the Lancaster has Augsburg, the Dams, The Tirpitz and other notable raids to its credit.
Its why Handley Page only narrowly avoided having to turn over production to it, and why Victory aircraft produced it overseas. Its why as the Halifax was finally phased out in 1953, the replacement was a Lancaster derivative. Even with other air forces, the Lancaster soldiered on well into the mid 1960's, by which time barely a single Halifax survived.
Revisionist historians are never going to change that, and the Lanc will continue to fly into legend no matter what they come up with or publish. It was and still is Bomber Command's "Shining Sword".
Regards,
Rich
(Long live Avro.)
I'd also suggest that his statistics are skewed, as by the time bombers were getting hit hard by the introduction of things such as "Schräge
Musik" and blowing up (not breaking up); there were a greater number of Lancasters on night bombing against Halifaxes.
He takes great and lengthy effort to highlight reports on Lancaster losses, yet quickly passes over similar data on the Halifax stability and performance issues - which were a concern for crews in combat. The early mark Halifax (as per my earlier comment) had rudder over balance issues and crews didn't like the idea of carrying out a corkscrew as it was known to often lead to a loss of control with the rudder jammed at its limit to port or starboard. He also conveniently skims over the point that certain Halifax units had consistently greater losses than any other Bomber Command unit - with no single known cause. The losses in numbers of Lancaster crew were accepted at the time against the job it could do, which was why it was concentrated on and the Halifax and Stirling slowly phased out to other roles.
In terms of the aircraft rather than the operations;
Show me a Halifax that was stressed for catapult launch. Show me a Halifax that could carry the same weight of payload. Show me a Halifax that could carry as varied a payload - including specialist weapons. Show me a Halifax that didn't present itself as an easy target for night fighters by way of its glowing exhausts (in Merlin and Hercules) or its performance issues (cured by armament stripping). Show me a Halifax that could go as deep into the Reich territory and back again as a Lancaster. Show me one that could get back after losing as many engines to enemy action.
You won't.
Despite playing with statistics to match whatever agenda the author of that thesis wished to suit, the Lancaster was the better all round aircraft. This is why the Lancaster has Augsburg, the Dams, The Tirpitz and other notable raids to its credit.
Its why Handley Page only narrowly avoided having to turn over production to it, and why Victory aircraft produced it overseas. Its why as the Halifax was finally phased out in 1953, the replacement was a Lancaster derivative. Even with other air forces, the Lancaster soldiered on well into the mid 1960's, by which time barely a single Halifax survived.
Revisionist historians are never going to change that, and the Lanc will continue to fly into legend no matter what they come up with or publish. It was and still is Bomber Command's "Shining Sword".
Regards,
Rich
(Long live Avro.)
Are we talking about Randall Wakelam's book?
Unfortunately prune logged me out after my extensive reply, so this is an abridged version.
I am sure cork screwing at height was better than being a sitting duck. As far as I am aware an engine out was the cause of the fatal rudder lock. It was manageable from height with all engines running.
Schrage Musik, did not 'blow up' the bomber, it set fire to the fuel tanks, allowing the night fighter and crew a chance to escape.
That the Lancaster took less time to build ( That's why the Halifax was better built?) , carried more bombs per lost aircraft and could carry a greater load is not in dispute. There was the MKIII that returned to England, minus its nose and bomb aimer and Navigator in Jan 45 and landed safely, a testament to its strength.
Bomber Commands own Operational Research Scientists concluded that: 68% of Lancaster losses had no survivors, Halifax survival rates were 25% and Lancaster 15%!
Last edited by rolling20; 20th Jul 2015 at 14:29.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chesterfield
Age: 42
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Halifax issue was the stalling of the fin and rudder, caused if it rudder was applied excessively. Test found that with any trim applied the rudder overbalanced at speeds below 150mph, and became completely unrecoverable if one or more engines was lost. Losing an engine wasn't the cause, but it didn't help.
My point about Schräge Musik was that the aircraft often didn't suffer a structural failure and break up - they were set on fire and blew up when the bombload went up (as happened to two friends of mine on different crews) or the fuel level was such that the fuel tank exploded. Taking figures for losses of this nature as a 'mid air break up' doesn't really prove the strength of one airframe against another as the loss is caused by damage and enemy action rather than an inherent weakness.
As for the survival rates, I'd be interested to see the survival rates if similar numbers of Halifaxes and Lancasters were counted, as opposed to a large number of Lancasters against a small number of Halifax as was the case during the Bomber offensive. To illustrate the point and how it can be easily swayed - what were the Lancaster survivability against Halifax on Coastal Command missions? Does that mean it was a better aircraft for Coastal missions? No..
Statistics are just numbers on a page. You can make them do as you please.
My point about Schräge Musik was that the aircraft often didn't suffer a structural failure and break up - they were set on fire and blew up when the bombload went up (as happened to two friends of mine on different crews) or the fuel level was such that the fuel tank exploded. Taking figures for losses of this nature as a 'mid air break up' doesn't really prove the strength of one airframe against another as the loss is caused by damage and enemy action rather than an inherent weakness.
As for the survival rates, I'd be interested to see the survival rates if similar numbers of Halifaxes and Lancasters were counted, as opposed to a large number of Lancasters against a small number of Halifax as was the case during the Bomber offensive. To illustrate the point and how it can be easily swayed - what were the Lancaster survivability against Halifax on Coastal Command missions? Does that mean it was a better aircraft for Coastal missions? No..
Statistics are just numbers on a page. You can make them do as you please.
The Halifax issue was the stalling of the fin and rudder, caused if it rudder was applied excessively. Test found that with any trim applied the rudder overbalanced at speeds below 150mph, and became completely unrecoverable if one or more engines was lost. Losing an engine wasn't the cause, but it didn't help.
My point about Schräge Musik was that the aircraft often didn't suffer a structural failure and break up - they were set on fire and blew up when the bombload went up (as happened to two friends of mine on different crews) or the fuel level was such that the fuel tank exploded. Taking figures for losses of this nature as a 'mid air break up' doesn't really prove the strength of one airframe against another as the loss is caused by damage and enemy action rather than an inherent weakness.
As for the survival rates, I'd be interested to see the survival rates if similar numbers of Halifaxes and Lancasters were counted, as opposed to a large number of Lancasters against a small number of Halifax as was the case during the Bomber offensive. To illustrate the point and how it can be easily swayed - what were the Lancaster survivability against Halifax on Coastal Command missions? Does that mean it was a better aircraft for Coastal missions? No..
Statistics are just numbers on a page. You can make them do as you please.
My point about Schräge Musik was that the aircraft often didn't suffer a structural failure and break up - they were set on fire and blew up when the bombload went up (as happened to two friends of mine on different crews) or the fuel level was such that the fuel tank exploded. Taking figures for losses of this nature as a 'mid air break up' doesn't really prove the strength of one airframe against another as the loss is caused by damage and enemy action rather than an inherent weakness.
As for the survival rates, I'd be interested to see the survival rates if similar numbers of Halifaxes and Lancasters were counted, as opposed to a large number of Lancasters against a small number of Halifax as was the case during the Bomber offensive. To illustrate the point and how it can be easily swayed - what were the Lancaster survivability against Halifax on Coastal Command missions? Does that mean it was a better aircraft for Coastal missions? No..
Statistics are just numbers on a page. You can make them do as you please.
But Wakelam isn't 'making statistics do as [he] please[s]'. He's quoting and analysing the ORS stats and the way in which Harris and Bomber Command dealt with/handled them. And - most critically, and I can only assume you missed this when reading the book - it talks on a number of occasions about the superiority of the Lancaster, and goes so far as to say that the stats produced by the ORS 'could not but have helped to convince the leaders of the futility of maintaining the Halifax as a front line bomber'.
With respect, you appear to be taking snippets of Wakelam's quoting from the ORS about issues with the Lancaster and viewing them as some sort of agenda against the Lancaster by the author, when that's simply not the case.
The problems with the Halifax are mentioned more than once; the loss rate, particularly in 6 Group and 434 Sqn in particular are covered - his commentary is on the ORS's difficulty in working out whether there were statistical trends or statistical anomalies at play. He 'skims over' this (although I would dispute that loaded description) simply because the ORS didn't come up with a satisfactory answer to the question and uses it to highlight the difficulties the ORS could have in reaching conclusions which they were certain were supported by the evidence and the analysis thereof.
The ORS - not Wakelam - said that the crew survival rates in the Lancaster were lower than those in the Halifax, and they did so using a credible methodology.
Since Wakelam served nearly 35 years in the CAF/RCAF as a pilot and expresses his view that when flying he thought OR was of little real use (p.4) and gives a clear statement of what he was trying to do in the thesis (and then the book) in his introduction, I'm not sure that he can be said to have some sort of revisionist agenda. Indeed, unless 'revisionism' is explaining how Bomber Command made good use of OR , or refuting the idea that Harris was a bloodthirsty war criminal (p7) or deprecating the idea that the offensive was a failure (p.6) then he's not a revisionist.
What's more, I can't help thinking that much of Wakelam's book and thesis in fact agree with the points you're making about the Lancaster...
I can't help worrying that you may be shooting the messenger (Wakelam) here; he is reporting what the ORS thought and advised through their stats, not coming up with his own calculations in some bid to make some sort of revisionist statement.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chesterfield
Age: 42
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Archimedes,
I suppose to some extent I am, but it was to assist my view that the post by rolling20 was incorrect in that the Lancaster was more prone to mid air break up. His source was Mr Wakelam's book, and with access to the book now I'm not at work; the full quote makes mention of mid air break ups in the same sentance as shot down aircraft;-
"The report also pointed out that the Lancaster, compared to the more strongly constructed Halifax, had a greater tendancy to break up in flight, and this in turn contributed to the fact that in 68 percent of the cases of Lancasters being shot down there were no survivors."
So my argument that we're not talking random structural failures (as implied by rolling20) as the cause of the loss stands. Note it also does not say "better built".
I still have slight issue with the statistics from the ORS as used by Mr Wakelam in that I feel that they are skewed, by the number of type of aircraft used on bombing operations. In most raids after 1943 there was often twice as many Lancasters operating as Halifax, despite total production numbers of the aircraft being similar. Later on there were raids that were exclusively comprised of Lancasters - so how can you generate a Halifax loss/survival percentage from that?
On reflection and reading back through the book I think I was a bit harsh, but I still think relying on what was believed at the time rather than what has been confirmed since, is not necessarily a good way to go about things.. as even now official statistics are heavily manipulated.
As with all things though, this is just me stating my opinion... so people are welcome to agree or disagree as they choose. I'll always back the Avro machine though over the Handley Page.
Kind regards,
Rich
I suppose to some extent I am, but it was to assist my view that the post by rolling20 was incorrect in that the Lancaster was more prone to mid air break up. His source was Mr Wakelam's book, and with access to the book now I'm not at work; the full quote makes mention of mid air break ups in the same sentance as shot down aircraft;-
"The report also pointed out that the Lancaster, compared to the more strongly constructed Halifax, had a greater tendancy to break up in flight, and this in turn contributed to the fact that in 68 percent of the cases of Lancasters being shot down there were no survivors."
So my argument that we're not talking random structural failures (as implied by rolling20) as the cause of the loss stands. Note it also does not say "better built".
I still have slight issue with the statistics from the ORS as used by Mr Wakelam in that I feel that they are skewed, by the number of type of aircraft used on bombing operations. In most raids after 1943 there was often twice as many Lancasters operating as Halifax, despite total production numbers of the aircraft being similar. Later on there were raids that were exclusively comprised of Lancasters - so how can you generate a Halifax loss/survival percentage from that?
On reflection and reading back through the book I think I was a bit harsh, but I still think relying on what was believed at the time rather than what has been confirmed since, is not necessarily a good way to go about things.. as even now official statistics are heavily manipulated.
As with all things though, this is just me stating my opinion... so people are welcome to agree or disagree as they choose. I'll always back the Avro machine though over the Handley Page.
Kind regards,
Rich
Anyone heard any news about the Lanc's status or return to flying?
Warrant Officer Kevin Ball, from the BBMF, said: "The problems for us are really in the support structure - a lot of the cowlings were damaged - so it's getting those repaired."
He said: "It's not so much the engine itself - it's the surrounding structure, electrical looms and so on."
Last year, the only other flying Lancaster, which is based in Canada, visited the UK. It also suffered technical problems and had to be loaned a spare engine by the BBMF.
This engine will now be fitted to the Lancaster once other parts have been replaced. WO Ball added: "We are looking to possibly air test during the last week of August, first week of September. "If it all comes together maybe we will see her flying before the end of the season."
He said: "It's not so much the engine itself - it's the surrounding structure, electrical looms and so on."
Last year, the only other flying Lancaster, which is based in Canada, visited the UK. It also suffered technical problems and had to be loaned a spare engine by the BBMF.
This engine will now be fitted to the Lancaster once other parts have been replaced. WO Ball added: "We are looking to possibly air test during the last week of August, first week of September. "If it all comes together maybe we will see her flying before the end of the season."
Archimedes, thank you!
Richard Woods you are ignoring facts. My post re break up may have been in Wakelam's book, but it is quoted from ORS.
As for aircraft blowing up, the wing usually burnt off or control was lost and the aircraft broke up, they did not blow up.
As for Lancaster crew losses, they are based on % numbers.
The Lancaster had hatches some 2 inches narrower than the Halifax , but I guess you will disagree with that fact as well!
Richard Woods you are ignoring facts. My post re break up may have been in Wakelam's book, but it is quoted from ORS.
As for aircraft blowing up, the wing usually burnt off or control was lost and the aircraft broke up, they did not blow up.
As for Lancaster crew losses, they are based on % numbers.
The Lancaster had hatches some 2 inches narrower than the Halifax , but I guess you will disagree with that fact as well!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chesterfield
Age: 42
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which bit are you missing here?
You said "Better built" and linked it to mid air break ups. You misquoted the book by Mr Wakelam, to make it appear that way. I disagreed. Not only is it wrong its an insult to all the people that built them to suggest they did a substandard job against the Halifax.
We got bogged down in things during which I point out I don't necessarily agree with him, or ORS reports of the time based on information we have now that they didn't have in January 1944.
Regardless, the Halifax wasn't better built, and no doubt they might have had to change their opinion on which was the stronger too - as just over a year later the Lancaster had already lifted the 12,000lb bomb, and in March 1945 the 22,000lb Grand Slam. Not bad for a weaker airframe.
As for not blowing up when hit, it might be worth you researching the 'Scarecrow' myth. I mentioned earlier I have friends from two crews both that got hit by upward firing cannon and both aircraft blew up. It might be coincidence but there seems to be quite a few others that did as opposed to flying along shedding parts bit by bit. Yet according to you - they "did not blow up".
With the hatches, be specific - which ones? The ditching hatches on top of the fuselage of the Lancaster are ridiculously small, but the three for bailing out of are quite large (rear turret doors, under the bomb aimer and rear crew door.)
Regards,
Rich
You said "Better built" and linked it to mid air break ups. You misquoted the book by Mr Wakelam, to make it appear that way. I disagreed. Not only is it wrong its an insult to all the people that built them to suggest they did a substandard job against the Halifax.
We got bogged down in things during which I point out I don't necessarily agree with him, or ORS reports of the time based on information we have now that they didn't have in January 1944.
Regardless, the Halifax wasn't better built, and no doubt they might have had to change their opinion on which was the stronger too - as just over a year later the Lancaster had already lifted the 12,000lb bomb, and in March 1945 the 22,000lb Grand Slam. Not bad for a weaker airframe.
As for not blowing up when hit, it might be worth you researching the 'Scarecrow' myth. I mentioned earlier I have friends from two crews both that got hit by upward firing cannon and both aircraft blew up. It might be coincidence but there seems to be quite a few others that did as opposed to flying along shedding parts bit by bit. Yet according to you - they "did not blow up".
With the hatches, be specific - which ones? The ditching hatches on top of the fuselage of the Lancaster are ridiculously small, but the three for bailing out of are quite large (rear turret doors, under the bomb aimer and rear crew door.)
Regards,
Rich
I suggest you do some proper research. Scarecrow flares were thought to be the Germans simulating an aircraft blowing up ,with shells fired to height. It was actually aircraft blowing up in mid flight, as a result of a direct hit by flak. It was not Schrage Musik. If the bombload went up, there was nothing left.
Again from ORS:' There was just a sudden burst of cannon fire, and the aircraft fell apart around them. Again, we missed an essential clue that might have led us to Schräge Musik.' The aircraft fell apart it did not blow up!
ORS estimated that 10,000 crewman lost their lives as the result of the rear Lancaster escape hatch being some 2 inches smaller than the Halifax and that the Halifax was more spacious than the Lancaster. But I guess that doesn't matter so long as the airframe was stressed for catapult launch, could fly higher, faster, carry a bigger payload etc....
Again from ORS:' There was just a sudden burst of cannon fire, and the aircraft fell apart around them. Again, we missed an essential clue that might have led us to Schräge Musik.' The aircraft fell apart it did not blow up!
ORS estimated that 10,000 crewman lost their lives as the result of the rear Lancaster escape hatch being some 2 inches smaller than the Halifax and that the Halifax was more spacious than the Lancaster. But I guess that doesn't matter so long as the airframe was stressed for catapult launch, could fly higher, faster, carry a bigger payload etc....
Last edited by rolling20; 21st Jul 2015 at 11:57.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chesterfield
Age: 42
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I don't think I do.
You're hinging your whole argument on a couple of lines from one report by the ORS done when there are plenty other reports out there to the contrary. Reliance on a single document at the expense of all others, and first hand accounts... you'd make a great Civil Servant.
The ORS didn't just miss Schrage Musik; they ignored it; which is why I referred to scarecrow. There's a reasonable account in Leo McKinstry's book on the Lancaster of Schrage Musik attacks, and how the 'scarecrow' urban legend came about to explain a bomber exploding mid air with no apparent attack.
There were reports of bombers being attacked from underneath as early as 1943 but it was ignored. Reports of crews seeing up to 15 bombers blowing up in one raid, with seemingly no attacks, ignored; they were told what they had seen were scarecrow shells. A special version of flak. All to try and keep the morale up.
The two guys I know that were in Lancasters that got hit by Schrage Musik tell (told in one case - RIP) stories that differ to the ORS report too. One kept the aircraft flying while it blazed away, long enough for the crew to get out. It eventually blew up - the bombs went off - as he was going out the nose escape hatch. It didn't just fall apart after getting hit by cannon fire.
The other had his aircraft and crew in a similar situation, and the fighter backed off to watch the Lancaster burn. It didn't back off far enough, as the rear gunner shot it down before leaving the aircraft.
You might want to also have a look through the excellent Lancaster at War books - there's an interesting series of photos showing a Lancaster with steel rods inserted into the wing showing cannon shell trajectories; originating from below. Again, the aircraft didn't fall apart around the crew.
Neither did all the aircraft that got hit by the same kind of cannon in conventional attacks - there are plenty of records of them getting back badly damaged. Are you going to tell me that Schrage Musik was specially designed somehow to make the aircraft fall apart as per the report whereas regular cannon wasn't?
In regards to escaping from the aircraft, you're still not telling me which hatch. The 'rear' one. On a Lanc you have the rear turret doors, the crew door (which is rather large) the two ditching hatches on the fuselage. Which one? and which one on the Halifax are we comparing it to?
The space afforded to crew in a Halifax has always been in its favour. But thats why it couldn't carry as big a payload isn't it? Which funnily, is what you want in a bomber. I'd argue getting to the hatch to get out is the biggest issue in abandoning a Lancaster against a Halifax, and probably why so many were lost. Spend a little money getting inside surviving examples of both, and you'll see why. It becomes even more apparent if you're wearing bulky clothing.
But if you want to bang away about Lancaster coming apart when hit, feel free. You have your opinion and I have mine; it won't change any, so there's little point arguing further.
Regards,
Rich
You're hinging your whole argument on a couple of lines from one report by the ORS done when there are plenty other reports out there to the contrary. Reliance on a single document at the expense of all others, and first hand accounts... you'd make a great Civil Servant.
The ORS didn't just miss Schrage Musik; they ignored it; which is why I referred to scarecrow. There's a reasonable account in Leo McKinstry's book on the Lancaster of Schrage Musik attacks, and how the 'scarecrow' urban legend came about to explain a bomber exploding mid air with no apparent attack.
There were reports of bombers being attacked from underneath as early as 1943 but it was ignored. Reports of crews seeing up to 15 bombers blowing up in one raid, with seemingly no attacks, ignored; they were told what they had seen were scarecrow shells. A special version of flak. All to try and keep the morale up.
The two guys I know that were in Lancasters that got hit by Schrage Musik tell (told in one case - RIP) stories that differ to the ORS report too. One kept the aircraft flying while it blazed away, long enough for the crew to get out. It eventually blew up - the bombs went off - as he was going out the nose escape hatch. It didn't just fall apart after getting hit by cannon fire.
The other had his aircraft and crew in a similar situation, and the fighter backed off to watch the Lancaster burn. It didn't back off far enough, as the rear gunner shot it down before leaving the aircraft.
You might want to also have a look through the excellent Lancaster at War books - there's an interesting series of photos showing a Lancaster with steel rods inserted into the wing showing cannon shell trajectories; originating from below. Again, the aircraft didn't fall apart around the crew.
Neither did all the aircraft that got hit by the same kind of cannon in conventional attacks - there are plenty of records of them getting back badly damaged. Are you going to tell me that Schrage Musik was specially designed somehow to make the aircraft fall apart as per the report whereas regular cannon wasn't?
In regards to escaping from the aircraft, you're still not telling me which hatch. The 'rear' one. On a Lanc you have the rear turret doors, the crew door (which is rather large) the two ditching hatches on the fuselage. Which one? and which one on the Halifax are we comparing it to?
The space afforded to crew in a Halifax has always been in its favour. But thats why it couldn't carry as big a payload isn't it? Which funnily, is what you want in a bomber. I'd argue getting to the hatch to get out is the biggest issue in abandoning a Lancaster against a Halifax, and probably why so many were lost. Spend a little money getting inside surviving examples of both, and you'll see why. It becomes even more apparent if you're wearing bulky clothing.
But if you want to bang away about Lancaster coming apart when hit, feel free. You have your opinion and I have mine; it won't change any, so there's little point arguing further.
Regards,
Rich