B-17 vs. He-177 vs. Lancaster

[Juha]

Kurfürst
480km/h: plenty of sources, but knowing your bias, what about Manfred Griehl - Joachim Dressel: Heinkel He 177, 277, 274. No British sounding names among authors, just for your peace of mind, Kurfürst.
Still wondering where they hid all those other remote contolled turrets, Kurfürst?
I have no problems with the quality of He 177 but IMHO You seems to have. Otherwise difficult to see the reason giving the speed of over 600km/h or claiming multiple remote controlled turrets.

Juha

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Google 'Battle for Berlin', 'Nuremburg Raid', 'Lancester Daylight Ardennes' and you will get a pretty fair idea.

Bomb truck.

And there was nothing for the -177.

That speaks volumes.

[Juha]

On bombload/range of He 177
according to both A. Price (He 177 Profile) and M. F. Bowyer (Air Raid!), sorry Kurfürst, British authors but neither to my knowledge germanophoby, the usual load of He 177s in early 44 against london was 4*1000kg but some experienced crews carried 2*1000kg+2*1800kg = 5600kg or 2*2500kg=5000kg. And according to Bowyer p. 306, according to British info based on found wrecks and papers, max possible load was 7,6 tons of which 2*1000kg externally, but then the range was only 400mls.

Juha

[syscom3]

And what was the useful bomb load on a 1600 mile (one way) mission?

B24's were on 3200 mile missions in 1943 (Darwin to Balikpapen) with a payload of 4000 pounds.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Google 'Battle for Berlin', 'Nuremburg Raid', 'Lancester Daylight Ardennes' and you will get a pretty fair idea.

Bomb truck.

Kurfurst
I did as you suggested and searched on Lancaster Ardennes and found the following link. Its interesting
RAF History - Bomber Command 60th Anniversary

It gives the record for the Month of December which I am sure you will agree is better than concentrating on one raid.

Total Lancaster Sorties 8,351
Total Lancaster Losses 92

You can read the posting, as you would expect some raids went very well others very wrong, but the vast majority achived some damage, often fairly serious damage.

It does give the war record of Lancasters and Bomber Command in some detail.

[Negative Creep]

I would go with the Lancaster. It's primary weakness was it's lack of defensive armament, but then as the B-17 showed, any unescorted bomber is vulnerable to interception. The 177 could avoid interception by going into a shallow dive, but used in small numbers mean it was never anything more than a nuisance. Whilst the B-17 and Lancaster were great airplanes, the Lancaster could carry larger loads and special bombs with little modification to the basic design. Regarding losses, it must be remembered that Bomber Command aircraft operated essentially on their own and without fighter escort

[syscom3]

At nighttime, the Lancs defensive guns were adequate.

After all, why do you need long range MG's when you couldn't even see your target.

[B-17engineer]

You certainly got a point

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Juha

Kurfürst
480km/h: plenty of sources,

Originally Posted by Juha

...but knowing your bias,

Vile bile.

Originally Posted by Juha

what about Manfred Griehl - Joachim Dressel: Heinkel He 177, 277, 274. No British sounding names among authors, just for your peace of mind, Kurfürst.

More vile bile. What Juha is selling as maximum speed appears to be the range at a given cruising speed for the He 177A-3. IE. 3700 km range while cruising at 480 Km/h at 9000m...

Sorry to say, but it would appear that if Juha doesn`t like the facts, he simply changes them, peppered with some personal attacks.

As for the He 177`s top speed, it varies in secondary sources. Sometimes 480 is given, sometimes 488, sometimes 510, sometimes 565 km/h. Take your pick. Secondary sources tend to give specs (48for a A-5/R2 which was a variant with external pilons and stores however, and neither make it clear what engine powers are used.

It would be best to get an original German datasheet which would make clear what figure is for what but I have not yet came accross one.

Originally Posted by Juha

Still wondering where they hid all those other remote contolled turrets, Kurfürst?

He 177A-5/R5, He-177A-5/R6, He 177A-5/R8. A couple were produced IIRC. Basically the thing here is that you are attacking me like a rabid dog over a typo. Shows a lot of things about your character.

Originally Posted by Juha

I have no problems with the quality of He 177 but IMHO You seems to have.

No, you have problems with honesty, reading comprehension and discussing things in a civilized manner.

Otherwise difficult to see the reason giving the speed of over 600km/h or claiming multiple remote controlled turrets.

Ah, I see. Now you`re also claiming I have given speeds over 600km/h.. can you tell me where? A new low for Juha it would appear.. Gentlemen, this will be interesting.

In the left corner Mr. Juha.
In the right corner, Nick Beale, wartime intelligence papers and German crews of the He 177.

To quote my earlier post Juha has distorted :

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Nick Beale however has an interesting bit about the He 177, however, which I will quote below :

'..Although the He 177 had a troubled development history and has received a bad press from the historians, prisoners from these particular machines spoke highly of them. High altitude performance was good, with speeds of 600-650 km/h 'easily attained'; the He 177 A-3 was rated 'more manouverable than any other GAF bomber' and :

' Both crews are most enthusiastic about the engines, which appear to function smoothly and efficiently over incredibly long journeys. The disengaging [to save fuel] and re-engagings of motors now takes place without any risk of fire, a tendency known to have rife when the motors first used.'

Just try to understand what he wrote, and please, don`t lie next time about my statements, attributing nonsense to me when it`s your inability to grasp what was written there, what it means, and from whom/where it was quoted..

Originally Posted by Juha

On bombload/range of He 177 according to both A. Price (He 177 Profile) and M. F. Bowyer (Air Raid!), sorry Kurfürst, British authors but neither to my knowledge germanophoby, the usual load of He 177s in early 44 against london was 4*1000kg but some experienced crews carried 2*1000kg+2*1800kg = 5600kg or 2*2500kg=5000kg.

And this proves... what ? note the change in subject from max bombload and range at 7 tons carried of the He 177 to what aircraft carried in given raids.

Of course. If a plane could carry 7 tons, it could carry less, too.

Originally Posted by Juha

And according to Bowyer p. 306, according to British info based on found wrecks and papers, max possible load was 7,6 tons of which 2*1000kg externally, but then the range was only 400mls.

I have never seen 7.6 tons mentioned anywhere, nor did you specify the conditions. Looking how you quote data from books, how you misquote me, I am afraid I just don`t believe any of your interpretation at all. I would like to see Bowyer`s statement in their completeness, and even better, a scan of the page.

This is what German datasheets give for the He 177 :



ie.

Loadout A : 7 tons / 8800 liter (max bombs, 70% fuel)
Loadout B : 4 tons / 10 730 liter
Loadout C : 1 tons / 12 660 liter (max fuel)

The aircraft`s range is given at 3700 km (other sources give 5500 km, but this is probably with extra fuel tanks in the bomb bay).

Given the ratios of fuel carried (ie. 100% for 1 ton bomb, 70% for 7 tons of bombs), the range was about 2600 km with the full 7 ton bomb load.

Unless, of course, someone wants to believe that decreasing fuel load to 70 % will decrease range to 17%, as Juha claims.

Please also note that Juha is appearantly well versed with these figures, as he clearly referred to this table in his post :

Originally Posted by Juha

7 t bombload was for nahbomber ie for short range ops only, for Mittelbomber max bombload was 4t.

I am afraid if you don`t present something VERY convincing about your claims Juha, I will have to ignore you on this board from now on. You see I am not interested in your distortion of my posts, vile bile, and pitiful personal attacks, and that you react to discussing jerry hardware of WW2 like a bull to a red canvas waved in front of him.

Start with supporting your dismissal of 7 tons bombload as 'for short range ops only'.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

Kurfurst
I did as you suggested and searched on Lancaster Ardennes and found the following link. Its interesting
RAF History - Bomber Command 60th Anniversary

It gives the record for the Month of December which I am sure you will agree is better than concentrating on one raid.

Total Lancaster Sorties 8,351
Total Lancaster Losses 92

You can read the posting, as you would expect some raids went very well others very wrong, but the vast majority achived some damage, often fairly serious damage.

It does give the war record of Lancasters and Bomber Command in some detail.

Thanks, it`s a very good and detailed link. I`d like to see something like that about Steinbock, giving a more complete picture, but to my knowledge it has been never seriously researched (ie. accurate sortie / loss / loss cause figures, bombs dropped, damage done). Not that if Steinbock on the whole would tell you a great lot about the He 177, which formed something like 10% of the varying force Peltz has commanded.

The RAF Bomber Command operations does not strike me as very different - apart from scale, far larger formations were used/were available - from Steinbock, don`t you agree? Some raids, like 3 December, wouldn`t even find the target, others a few days later would and hit it hard. Sometimes formations got aways with very low losses, at other times they were cought pants down by Flak and Fighters, like during the daylight Cologne raid which 'went very badly', being caught by the Doras of JG 26 IIRC.

[Aussie1001]

I believe that the lancaster could have benifited from a) .50 BMG's in all turrents instead of the .303 BMG's much more lead being thrown out syscom i disagree bigger guns means more lead flying faster, and i believe it was possible to see aircraft at night due to exhaust flames coming from the engines and other illuminating sources ie. searchlights, burning bombers etc.
b) A gun turret underneath the bomber as the this would make it a lot less vulnrable to the germans Slanting music affair with their cannons and guns. c) more escape hatches to allow easier exit for the pilot as it was often impossible for him to get out for various reasons ie. massive wing spar through the middle of the fuselage and the g's the bomber might be pulling.

[Kurfürst]

Didn`t a few Lancasters towards the end of the war received a twin .50 BMG gun in the rear turret, with some advanced sight for the gunner...?

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

Yes, some Lancasters retrofitted with Rose-Rice Turrets late ’44 and production switched to FN 82 turrets with or without AGLT (“Village Inn”) fire control radars. Both turrets fitted with 2 x .5s but with much reduced ammunition supplies.

Mk 7 & 10 Lancs thus retro fitted/equipped would have toted 4 x .5s, a much better situation. However, Mk 7s were too late for the war. I don’t believe that FN 82s made it to Canada and their Sqns were not in the Rose-Rice retrofit programme that seems to have been focused on the Lincolnshire Sqns, which is understandable as that is where the Rose Bros Engineering firm was based.

Lancaster = bomb truck no argument. It was what was needed and it delivered in spades.

[Micdrow]

This does not cover all the bomb layouts of the He-177 but shows how they would be in the bomb bay.

Second one is how the He-177 remote turrent worked.

[Kurfürst]

Ah, so the 7000 kg bombload is 2x 1800 kg = 3600 + 2 x 1700 kg = 3400 == 7000kg. Thanks Mic'.