your aircraft database

the lancaster kicks ass · 12-21-2003, 06:49 AM

can i just ask as to why you have so few british planes on your aircraft database?
i realise it's hard to compile information on such a huge topic, but there are some britsh planes which i think should be in there, namely the hawker hurricane, hawker typhoon, de havilland mosquito and vickers wellington amoung others. i just thaught you might like to considder it?

horse[USA] · 12-21-2003, 09:12 PM

thx for the encouragement

been busy past few weeks but no worries i am gona add some aircraft to the database and i will start with your picks(true the british are under represented

)

the lancaster kicks ass · 12-23-2003, 12:34 PM

amny thank yous, i eagerly await the updates, an i'm sure everybody in britain is jumping for joyas we finally get some recognition for our war efforts

corpcasselbury · 12-24-2003, 10:32 AM

The biggest criticism I can make about the Avro Lancaster is that it was badly undergunned. I realize that it was designed as a night bomber, but it still could and should have been better armed. First, why were the machine guns .303 instead of .50 caliber? The latter would do a lot more damage to any attacking German fighters (as the Luftwaffe pilots who fought the American daylight formations could attest), yet only a handful of Lancs were so armed, apparently on a trials basis. Secondly, and more importantly, why was there no ventral gun turret? One should have either been installed from the beginning, or at least retrofitted. According to Cajus Bekker's book, "The Luftwaffe War Diaries", at least a quarter of Bomber Command's losses were due to attacks from below. Many of the German night fighters had an installation they called "Schragen Musik"; this involved mounting 20mm cannon to fire upward at about a thirty degree angle. A gunsight on the roof was all that was needed to enable the Luftwaffe pilots to attack the British bombers outside the field of fire for the bomber's tail gunner; in other words, without fear of counterfire.

The Lancaster was a great aircraft, but it was not as good in some ways as it could have, and should have, been.

12-24-2003, 12:47 PM

The lanc. had no ventral gun turret like the American bombers purely because there was no room! The 33ft long bomb bay which helped it carry such huge loads took up all the useable room on the underside of the fusilage

corpcasselbury · 12-28-2003, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reply

The lanc. had no ventral gun turret like the American bombers purely because there was no room! The 33ft long bomb bay which helped it carry such huge loads took up all the useable room on the underside of the fusilage

But there were some Lancasters fitted with a ventral turret apparently as an experiment. Did it not work?

Hot Space · 01-23-2004, 01:20 PM

Yes and no.

The Ventral Turret was only on the 1st Production Batch, but it was found to be useless under night time condition so it was taken off and all Production Aircraft after that never had it installed.

The Lancaster Mk VII had as standard, 2 .50 Guns in the Mid-Upper Turret and 2 .50 Guns in the Tail. Some Mk I and III's sometimes also had this 50 Cal Tail Turret

Hot Space

I./JG53_lud13 · 01-23-2004, 05:40 PM

B-17 sure was better beacose it can come at night too .on the other hand Lancaster will never survive daylight bomber campangne

the lancaster kicks ass · 01-25-2004, 07:35 AM

yea, it cud bomb at night, but with what, it was so overloaded with guns, they'd forgotten to make room for bombs and so just slotted them in the middle somewhere!