The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Shooter8

Only if you count bombs dropped outside the city limmets does the Lanc compare with the B-17 or -24 where we required them to be inside the fenceline to be counted as hits. The RAF declaired that ~50% of the bombs dropped at night landed inside the city limmets, therefore the other 50% were waisted! Reduce all tonnage by that figure! On the other hand, if we count the entire city limmets area as hits then the American bombers did very much better than the Lanc because most of their bombs landed inside the city limmets.

Do you have quantified record of that?

Originally Posted by Shooter8

If the Lanc was so good after the war, why did the RAF by the Washington?

To Give the RAF a global strike capability that it didn't have at the time - this happening while the fist V bombers were being developed.

Originally Posted by Shooter8

When someone claimed that 6000 B-24s were scrapped in a year, what porportion of the 18,000 built is that and how many survived out of the 7-7,377 Lancs made?

Another 1000 probably scrapped there after. Did you ever stop to think that it does cost money to maintain and operate an aircraft an in many cases operational aircraft were either stored or scrapped all together based on operational costs?

Originally Posted by Shooter8

Exactly what was the strength of the RAF Bomber Comand after the war? IIRC, they only had 3-400 mediums (Lancs) on the roll in 1947 and those included how many Washingtons? That would equal ~96% or more scrapped with in two years of the end of the war?

High time Lancasters were scrapped - the fact remains the aircraft served Bomber Command into the 1950s and served many other nations quite well in secondary roles up to the 1960s.

Originally Posted by Shooter8

You can not go by raw numbers and make an honest argument.
From page 18 of Stewart's AIRCRAFT OF WW-II,
Lancaster;
EEW=41,000 Lbs.
MTO=68,000 Lbs and 72,000 Lbs OLTO.
Speed with Merlin 24s @1620 HP Ea.= 287MPH @ 11,500'.
CRUISING SPD = 215 mph.
Range with 10,000 Lbs = 1,040 Miles, = Radius of Action = 468 Miles.
Service Cieling 24,500'
Ferry Range 2,678 Miles. ( No Bombs!)
Max bomb load 14,000 pounds for all but a few hundred late war planes.

Errr, what model Lanc are you using????

Originally Posted by Shooter8

Not wishing to embarass you with numbers from the B-24 or B-29 I list from the same source on page 27 the B-17G numbers, 8,680 built or more than 1,000 more than all Lancs combined.

Are you comparing the Lanc to the B-17, B-24 or B-29???? There is no doubt the B-29 was the best heavy bomber if not the best bomber of WW2. The Lancaster is a distant second.

Specifications (Lancaster)

Loaded weight: 63,000 lb (29,000 kg)
Powerplant: 4× Rolls-Royce Merlin XX V12 engines, 1,280 hp (954 kW) each
Performance

Maximum speed: 240 knots (280 mph, 450 km/h) at 15,000 ft (5,600 m)
Range: 2,700 NM (3,000 mi, 4,600 km) with minimal bomb load
Service ceiling: 23,500 ft (8,160 m)
Wing loading: 48 lb/ft² (240 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.082 hp/lb (130 W/kg)
Armament


Guns: 8× 0.303 in (7.70 mm) Browning machine guns in three turrets, with variations
Bombs: Maximum normal bomb load of 14,000lbs or 22,000lb Grand Slam with modifications to bomb bay

BTW you're not embarrassing me with any numbers from a non-technical history book - If I want or need the performance data I'll go to the flight manual.

Originally Posted by Shooter8

B-17G;
EEW=38,000 Lbs.
MTO=65,500 Lbs and 72,000 Lbs OLTO.
Speed with R-1820-97s @1200 HP = 286MPH, 1380HP WEP Ea.= 302MPH @ 25,000'. Note that the B-17 is faster on less power than the Lanc indicating supirior aerodynamics.

Can you prove that? Do you have wind tunnel data???

Originally Posted by Shooter8

CRUISING SPD = 160-182 mph. Depending on load. This equates to a much faster TAS because of the differances in altitude. (272-310 MPH TAS @ 25K')
Range with 4,000 Lbs = 1,800 Miles, = Radius of Action = 810 Miles.
Range with 9,600 Lbs = 1,080 Miles, = Radius of Action = 486 Miles.
Service Cieling 35,600'
Ferry Range 3,400 Miles. ( No Bombs!)
Max Bomb Load for all planes of this model17,600 Lbs.(11X1,600Lbs AP bombs)

The big differance comes when you compair deffensive fire power and armor. Take a guess which has more of both?

The Lancaster as far as bomb load, plain and simple.

You've cited data from a history book - why don't you try to find yourself the Pilot's Notes or Flight Manual from each aircraft and find out what were the listed performance numbers of the aircraft and then compare them to the real operations the aircraft were subjected to.
For example, do you really think a B-17 was operated at 35,000 feet with a full bomb load????

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Shooter8

The Germans figured that less that 9,000 of it's fighters were lost to b-17s, less than 5,000 to B-24s and less than 2,000 to all other types. After the war, they pretty much all agreed that daylight bombers shot down between 12-13 thousand fighters, their escorts shot down another 12-13 thousand fighters by every bodies best guess.

Again where are you coming up with this data???The USAAF Heavy Bombers CLAIMED A little over 6000 and in actuality probably brought down more like 3000 if that many and that probably includes medium bombers as well. Here...

Army Air Forces in World War II

And if you REALLY want to lean about German losses, start here...

J A G D G E S C H W A D E R 26 "SCHLAGETER"

Originally Posted by Shooter8

How many night fighters were downed?

By whom, the RAF? Bombers or fighters????

Ever hear of 100 Group?

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by Shooter8

The Germans figured that less that 9,000 of it's fighters were lost to b-17s, less than 5,000 to B-24s and less than 2,000 to all other types. After the war, they pretty much all agreed that daylight bombers shot down between 12-13 thousand fighters, their escorts shot down another 12-13 thousand fighters by every bodies best guess.

How many night fighters were downed?

Your proving a little knowledge is a dangerous thing

[FLYBOYJ]

Shooter, let me put this out there for you...

"As the intensity of air combat over Europe grew, the USAAF began to experience a flood of victory claims from its air gunners. This was not surprising, of course. A given formation of bombers might have fifteen to twenty aircraft. Each had five or six people shooting at oncoming enemy fighters. If one enemy aircraft was shot down, dozens of air gunners might claim - in perfectly good faith - that they hit it. However, this led to utterly unrealistic claims of successes, so much so that on some days (as post-war investigations proved), USAAF gunners claimed to have shot down more German aircraft than had actually been in the air! Royal Air Force intelligence experts advised USAAF staff to divide their gunners' claims by at least six in order to obtain a realistic figure. The USAAF refused, somewhat indignantly, and only conceded the point after the war."

Bayou Renaissance Man: Weekend Wings #25: Air Gunners

[Glider]

An excellent link giving a very good description of the development of gun turrets. Thanks

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Joe thanks for posting those links, they have some good info. We seem to go though this every few months don't we?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Joe thanks for posting those links, they have some good info. We seem to go though this every few months don't we?

Yep!

[renrich]

I sometimes wonder if the waist gunners in the heavy bombers ever hit anything except by accident. Obviously they could score some hits but when you think about the leads and angles involved it must have been difficult. I had a friend in Colorado who was a fight engineer and top turret gunner on a B26 and at least in his later years a topflight rifle and shotgun shooter. I asked him if he ever thought he hit anything from his turret and he said no because it was very difficult.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by renrich

I sometimes wonder if the waist gunners in the heavy bombers ever hit anything except by accident. Obviously they could score some hits but when you think about the leads and angles involved it must have been difficult. I had a friend in Colorado who was a fight engineer and top turret gunner on a B26 and at least in his later years a topflight rifle and shotgun shooter. I asked him if he ever thought he hit anything from his turret and he said no because it was very difficult.

Heard the same thing, that's why when I heard "the Germans figured that less that 9,000 of it's fighters were lost to b-17s" well I felt likw buying one of these...

The Universal Bullshit Detector Watch™ - Cool Humorous Gadget Watch

[renrich]

No way there is any way to discover this but wouldn't it be interesting if one could determine how many hits each gun position on a heavy bomber was responsible for. My bet would be the tail gunner with the most. Another one would be which gunnery runs were most favored by the LW, rear from six o clock, headon, etc. and which ones were the most productive and then of course how many LW fighters were actually shot down by bomber guns and which types were more likely to be shot down.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by renrich

No way there is any way to discover this but wouldn't it be interesting if one could determine how many hits each gun position on a heavy bomber was responsible for. My bet would be the tail gunner with the most. Another one would be which gunnery runs were most favored by the LW, rear from six o clock, headon, etc. and which ones were the most productive and then of course how many LW fighters were actually shot down by bomber guns and which types were more likely to be shot down.

The first thing you would have to do is sort out claim versus 'actual' - I think impossible to do for bombers. Hard enough for fighters with witnesses and gun camera film to back up.

[flakhappy]

Originally Posted by drgondog

The first thing you would have to do is sort out claim versus 'actual' - I think impossible to do for bombers. Hard enough for fighters with witnesses and gun camera film to back up.

Nobody in all this debate has contributed much but dry statistics to fit individual biases. Like debating how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin. My great-grandson would say: Grandpa! Get a life!

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by flakhappy

Nobody in all this debate has contributed much but dry statistics to fit individual biases. Like debating how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin. My great-grandson would say: Grandpa! Get a life!

We alll learn a lot about the bombers with our banter and bias's.

[flakhappy]

Originally Posted by syscom3

We alll learn a lot about the bombers with our banter and bias's.

You bet, but during WWII, whenever anybody started spouting meaningless statistics some wise old owl told us to stop choosing the wallpaper while the house was on fire.

[RAF Liberators]

Well the RAF B-24 was way better than the US version, it had to be because my Grandad flew them....

An American airman, was told at Briefing to ‘Go in at 30,000 feet and keep out of the flak.”
“If I go in a 20,000 feet, what will happen?’ asked the airman.
“You’ll probably be mentioned in despatches”, answered the officer.
“If I go in at 10,000 feet, what will happen then ?“ he asked.
“In that case you will probably get the Congress Medal”, he was told.
"And if I go in at 5,000 feet?’ he inquired excitedly.
“Don’t be a fool, man”, replied his superior, “you’ll go and bump into the R.A.F. at that height.”

Thought the subject needed to be lightened up a bit, life's too short, don't take it so seriously