Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Magic Mossies
Aussiegunneragain    7/11/2010 9:01:10 AM
There was a thread on here a few years ago put up by a fellow named Shooter, who was trying to make the argument that the Dehavilland Mosquito was a strategically insignificant aircraft which should never have been produced for the RAF, because it represented a waste of engines which could have better been used in Avro Lancasters. Shooter, an American, had a hobby of trying to diss any non-American type that had an excellent reputation (the Spitfire was another favourite target) and most people here told him he was being a clown with that being the end of it. However, the thread has stuck in the back of my mind and made me wonder whether in fact the Mossie, despite its widespread usage in a variety of roles, was in fact underutilised in the daylight strategic bombing role? It did perform some very important low level raids such as the daylight raid on the Phillips radio works (along with Ventura's and Bostons - far less Mossies were shot down)in Holland during Operation Oyster. However, I can't find many references to the Mossie being used for the sort of regular high altitude daylight strategic bombing missions that the B-17 and other USAF daylight heavies conducted. Consider its characteristics: -It could carry 4 x 500lb bombs all the way to Berlin which meant that you needed three mossies to carry a slightly larger warload than one B-17 did, which upon this basis meant more engine per lb of bomb in the Mossie. -However, the Mossie was hard to catch and was more survivable than the Heavies. The latter only really became viable with the addition of long-range escort fighters, something that the mossie could have done without. -It only required two crew versus ten on a B-17. Without intending to be critical of the USAF daylight heavies, because they were one of the strategically vital assets in winning WW2, I am wondering whether had the RAF used the Mossie in the role at the expense of night bombing operations in Lancasters? I have read accounts that suggest that the later were not really directly successful in shutting down German production, with the main contribution being that they forced the Germans to provide 24/7 air defence. If they had used Mossies more in the daylight precision role is it possible that the impact that the fighter-escorted USAF bombers had on German production might have been bought forward by a year or so, helping to end the War earlier? Another idea that I have is that if Reich fighter defences had started to get too tough for unescorted Merlin powered Mossies on strategic daylight missions, that they could have built the Griffon or Sabre powered versions that never happenned to keep the speed advantage over the FW-190? Up-engined Fighter versions of the Mossie would also have probably had sufficient performance to provide escort and fighter sweep duties in Germany in order to provide the bombers with even more protection. Thoughts? (PS, in case anybody hasn't worked it out the Mossie is my favourite military aircraft and my second favourite aircraft after the Supermarine S-6B ... so some bias might show through :-). I do think it has to rate as one of the best all round aircraft of all time based on its merits alone).
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38   NEXT
45-Shooter       3/14/2013 4:37:26 PM

with inferior bombing aids, a wash?  Completely true until late war when the US satrted to install Bitish blind bombing equipment and vastly increased thier accuracy
Did you know that we built roughly eight times as many of those blind bombing radars as the British did and installed more of them sooner than the RAF in late 1944/45? So, I would say it was a wash.  
A british invention that the US were forced to use as due to cloud cover they couldn't even see the majority of the targets
 I never said it was an American invention and we were forced to use it because cloud cover hid the targets.
that could bomb no better, and actually no higher with any accuracy, It was the RAF that stated that less than half the bombs they dropped landed inside the city limits!
Both the USAAF and RAF post war surveys agree that agaisnt the SAME target the RAF night bombing by 44 was as accurate as the USAAF You forgot the word "Almost"!
  And all the tonnage dropped before the middle of 1944? Right!

where did I say that, misdirection again trying to wriggle out again I see


You are right, you did not say it, I did! 

This despite the obvious great advances made in aircraft design between 1934 and 1937-1941 (Manchester that evolves into the Lancaster) and the demonstrated greater adaptability of the Lancaster to meet changing conditions? And in the same time, the B-17A/B/C/D TURNED into the B-17 E/F/G which was in most ways a completely different plane than the early versions!
wrong, if you look their is actually not that much difference between the D and E other than the tail and weaponary the bomb bay which is what we are discussing was exactly the same between all models
Not quite. The new tail fixed several serrious problems and the verticle stringers that carried the racks were strengthened twice, once with the E and a second time with the G.
secondly we are only considering the F/G anyway.
    The E/F/G was a newer plane than the Lancaster which was little changed from the start and with the exception of the wing stretch and extra engines. IE the fuse was unchanged in any major way!    
the basic B17 was an older design and was a dead end it was basically a airliner with bombs no a properly designed bomber     
No, it was the other way around, it was a bomber that was converted into a air linner. 
the wing redesign was for the change to 4 engines from 2 even though the 4 weren't that much more powerfull then the 2 (but were much more reliable the Manchester engines had a 150 hour overhaul schedule)
But those did not last to the end of the first or second flight, IIRC. Their average was under 12 hours, again IIRC. But you post the history of that engine for us all to see.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/14/2013 4:45:46 PM
well some of that is right, but the Lancaster was not less stable Well yes it is less stable! You can not have "Light and responcive controls" at the same time as being "More stable"!
shows how much you understand about control authority, a stable bomber can and often is light and responsive to control inputs
   horrible Cyclones No, they were not more reliable and it was not even close! Even the worst case of less than 300 hours TBO of the Cyclone Vs the 150 hours "AVERAGE" of the Merlin.
what complete rubbish where is your source for 150 hours for the Lancaster merlin XX again you think we will trust your sky pixie numbers
  AS I have always agreed and stated the Lancaster DID carry more bombs on average than the B-17, but it was not because of aerodynamic superiority, which is simply the reverce, but because of operational choices!
yes is was, the choice was a big bomb load(Lancaster) or a small one (B17)
 
 The B-17 is aerodynamically superior to the Lancaster. Both planes standard versions, >8,000 Gs Vs <7,400 Lancs which could cary a weight, regardless of how, of 17,600 to 18,000 pounds.
but it couldn't could it just how many times do you need telling
  the same TOW and the same altitude and speed! Because AAA is very much more effective the lower you go, the choise to go higher,
then why did the USAAF lose so many bombers to flak over the major targets? maybe because they weren't fly at those altitudes (most B17 missions were <25k a height the Lancaster could manage, US Doctrine was for the B17 to operate at 21-23k and are on record as recommending against the RAF suing them at > 30k
at night their was actually no benefit in higher altitude, Chadwick actually looked at a high altitude Lanc by using the two stage Merlin and a 6 foot increase in wing span but it was never built
 
 with ALL that that entials means that the RAF-BC took more dead and wounded in spite of flying in the dark which makes the most effective part of the deffense less effective, IE the fighter, at least as stated by the RAF-BC!
but only with huge fighter escort as unescorted the daylight raids were suicide unless performed against light defences  
the often quoted 17500lbs number is a red herring as that was a paper figure and not something actualy achieved.
Correct, just as the Average bomb load of the Lancaster was about 8000 pounds, not 14-18000 pounds!
no the offical average was 10500 not 8000lbs
 
 No mater how you slice it the weight of bombs carried depends on other factors besides the maximum bomb load that can be carried!  
yes true the limit is the size of the bay and size of bombs available, this is why the lanc could and did carry 14000lb to berlin and B17 carried 4000lbs
 
 The only reason that the Lanc "Averaged" more bombs per mission is because of Tactical/strategic choises that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the plane's ability to lift a load!
only within the limits of the aircraft, if your bomber cannot carry more than 10000lbs without severely restricting range and speed then you have to plan your tactics round your abilities
 
Then why was the the "Average" bomb load of the lancaster about 8000 pounds?
that's why it wasn't it was 10500lbs


  While all of this is true on it's face, it is totally irrealivant! The B-17's bomb bay was not that small, it was twice as wide and two and a half times as tall as the lancaster's bay!
twice as wide is complete bull the B17 could take 4 x 500lbs across the bays a Lanc could carry 3 so just how is that twice?
 In other words, except for the maximum length, the two bays were very close in total volume!                                                    
not in usable volume as is clear when you look at what bombs could be carried 4 1000lb max for the B17 and 14 for the Lancaster 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/14/2013 5:19:29 PM
But then the B-17 carries much more fuel and can stay in the air about a third more hours than the Lancaster.but it could could it so this is a misdirection, you make a claim and then keep repeating it as if its true when its not, to use your own argument, range is fungable, with additional long range tanks a Lanc could take the 4500lbs bomb load of the B17 to a range of 5500 miles
This is where you are very wrong! The B-17 did not-does not need those bomb bay tanks to significantly out range the Lancaster, IF they are flown at the same altitude, speed and MTO!    the B17 needed those tanks to reach targets that the Lancaster were repeatedly bombing (berlin was out of range of early F's without bomb bay tanks the Lancaster always out ranged the B17
that figure is the range with 4000 pounds of bombs with one 410 gallon tank in the left side of the bomb bay and the Tokyo tanks filled at a OLTO of 72,000 pounds, If flown at less than 18,000'! well that's a lie as the Tokyo tanks REPLACED the bomb bay tanks, provide a single source that has those facts because all the sources I can find contradict it
The one and only reason the Lancaster could do this is because the mission was flown at a much lower ALTITUDEthis is a lie, the mission you quote as being an example of B17 range, that of the missions to Trondheim was flow at 2500 feet until it hit the coast before climbing to 15000ft
IF the Lanc was forced to fly as high as the average B-17 mission, it would not have carried as much load to as long a range!
yes it could as the Lancaster could reach the average height of a B17 mission 
  It is the one and only factor that means anything!
there you go again deciding against all evidence that the ONE thing your aircraft is good at it the "ONE AND ONLY" factor I would say every body agrees that the critical thing for a bomber is its BOMB
 
The B-17 could not eliminate the additional gunners as the plane needed them for daylight defense. Yes, this is also true! BUT, the Lancaster did not carry that armor and was very much more dangerous to fly in and it showed in spite  of the Lancs prederliction for night missions!
wrong it was safer to fly as it was tasked against targets that were prohibitive for the USAAF to target, to keep the B17 losses within an acceptable level they needed to ensure that the targets were lightly defended 
 (due to the losses the B17 suffered when they did 20-30% agaisnt tthe BC 3-5%)
This is the difference between night and day light missions!
which shows that the MAJORITY of B17 missions couldn't be against the heavy defended targets or the loss rate would have been 10x that of the Lanc    
 In over 100 posts, you have never addressed the altitude question!
 I have, I have consistently said that as the Lancaster was a night bomber altitude was not critical (B29 night bombing what height did they bomb at?), you however only have the altitude advantage of the B17 so you have to insist that it is the most important aspect 
 
u have never addressed the aerodynamic quality of the two plane as shown by the huge differances in service cielings, or speed with less power!  
but the combat speed of the Mk1 Lancaster was 227 vs 208 for the B17G and on how much extra power? actually at altitude due to the turbo the B17 was producing MORE power at 15000ft than the Lancaster but was slower
1. So to contain the argument; The Lancaster has a lower service cieling at a lower weight!  
true but as BC had tried 30000ft bombing and decided against it as it really needed pressurised aircraft which was a bigger job than the UK could manage in the middle of a war so it was happy with the 27000 service ceiling of the Lancaster
2. The B-17 is faster on less power.  
 wrong in the practical world (really wrong once you need to hang bombs off the bottom to get the load up)
 
before you can go to any other argument.

no I decide what I answer not you
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/14/2013 5:36:23 PM
 
but we already know that this is 2500lbs short of the actual number (say roughly 25% low)
     No, it is the right number at least as far as the RAF's version of their Strategic bombing survey unit!  
Not according to numerous sources that is not the case and as you have no idea and even less chance of actually doing any research I will believe my figures 
 
And again we know this is the right number at least as far as the USAAF Startegic Bombing Survey! So you are wrong again and I was right both times!  
nope you are still  wrong  as the strategic bombing survey doesn't actually say one way or the other you need to analyse the data and that is way beyond you it seems
 
say 55000 Bomber crews and Fighter escort pilots which is a more accurate figure 
  NO! It is the figure stated by the RAF-BC! 55,000 crew killed in action buy enemy action! So it is the right figure and you are wrong  again!
nope those are the correct figures so na na to you too (see I can be childish too)
So the B-17 flew less than twice as many missions in less than 10% more bomber-days!
an irrelavent figure
  Except that it shows the B-17 was availible for those extra missions!
but doesn't EXPLAIN anything which makes it worthless
 
That is that there were so many planes availible on so many days and those numbers are less than 10% apart. Because heavy bombers can not fly more than one mission per day, AND the fact that there was LESS than 10% MORE Bomber Days availible to the B-17, It had to be roughly 70% more reliable!
but how much of that 70% was plane, how much was Crew and how much was tactical?
    no its doesnt as your figure fails to take into consideration battle damage, crew fatigue and numeous other figures.
  All of those things are of a part! They go both ways and as such they wash each other out!
crap, you have just dismissed this without even looking into it, this shows that you are NOT here to learn just to try and impress with your insights however flawed and weak they are
 
The fact that the B-17 had to fly 291,000 missions means that the engines had more hours running, more start up and stop cycles, more tempurature cycles into colder stratispheric air and twice as many hours to get damaged by enemy fire! Yet they still flew 291K Missions to 156 K Missions! In only 10% more plane days!
yet more rubbish
  Yes, and you are spreading it!
I have to as you are dumping it so deep

291,000 sorties vs 156,000 sorties. 640,000 tons to 608,000 tons. Almost the same number of Plane days. One of these two records is for a plane that was very reliable and the other that was marginal at best!
firstly you are using short vs long again
  This was throughly disprooved two dozen posta ago with the link to the RAF's Stratigic Bombing Survey Unit Report!
er no it wasn't and if you think it was then you are having another mea culpa moment
 
They were ALL in short tonnes, no-one but shipping companies used long tons! Not the RAF and not the British Army!
  you do realise that the long ton is the Imperial measurement and as such was the standard unit of measurement by Great Britain (the Short ton was a US measurement and was called short by thr brits to indicatethat is was less than the standard ton), whilst in the states the Long ton may only be used by shipping companies it was the standard here until we went metric
then we have this big difference in the figures for the lancaster, an AVERAGE bombload of 10500lbs and 156000 sorties gives 819000 tons not your 608000 whilst your B17 average of 2500lbs and 291000 gives 364000 tons
  Pure BS!
really? just how do you work that out, as my figures come from the same sources as yours and you shouting BS does not invalidate anything above

    wow just how bad is the B17
  Great as it turns out!
strange measurement of greatness but then again not surprising from you
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/14/2013 5:47:07 PM
OBNW; Ferry range is not effective combat radius, as measured by air hours.
But what it does mean is that there is X amount of gas still left to burn in the B-17's tanks when the Lancaster runs dry! And that amount of gas "X" is sufficient for a B-17 to fly 900 miles.
I still have not heard of any Lanc raid that flew with bombs to a range of 2,200 miles round trip air miles that the B-17 flew to Trondhiem and back. ( 912 Miles Great Circle distance!) In fact, I've neaver heard of any Lancaster Mission that flew 912 Air Miles each way.
But I am always eager to learn, if any of you know of such a mission, please post same for all to see.
well how about the the raids on
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/%3Ca%20href=">http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/_blank" org="" en.wikipedia.="" wiki="" troms%c3%b8?="">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troms%C3%B8" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troms%C3%B8" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troms%C3%B8">
Tromsø
The point of the link you post is that the Tirpitz was sunk just south of the city! What you do not state is that the lancaster flew that mission with stripped planes loaded to take off weights of 72,000 pounds FROM SCOTLAND!
     or maybe the earlier raid tirpitz raid further north?
only the Tallboy were stripped, the mine layers also on the mission were STANDARD lancasters and maybe you should look at the difference between where the Lancasters were bombing and where the B17 bombed

  Just one question, where was it launched from? RIGHT! I get it. You hate me because I come off as so smug when I am right?
you are always smug but as for when you are right I wouldn't know as I cant remember when it has ever happened
    oh and I love they way you add an extra 300 miles to your raid?
  Not at all! Didn't you know that they launched the American raid from bases west of London
 check your maps and see exactly were these places are in relationship to each other, and remember that the B17 were based in that area as they were more range restricted than the Lancaster based further north
 and the RAF/Lancaster raids from SCOTLAND?
to much further north than the B17 target
And that the American raid blew almost due north from those bases as the climbed and formed up, then turned East for a total Air Range of just under 2,200 statute miles! 2,200 MILES! RIGHT!
actually if you check the flight paths of those raid you will find that they flew directly to the target at 2500ft climbing on reaching the coast (the details are online if you check the Bomb group records)
oh and the citation for the medals won for that mission state 1900miles and I will believe the medal citation over you anyday
so you are still batting zero
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/14/2013 5:54:16 PM
But what it does mean is that there is X amount of gas still left to burn in the B-17's tanks when the Lancaster runs dry! And that amount of gas "X" is sufficient for a B-17 to fly 900 miles.      
I still have not heard of any Lanc raid that flew with bombs to a range of 2,200 miles round trip air miles that the B-17 flew to Trondhiem and back. ( 912 Miles Great Circle distance!) In fact, I've neaver heard of any Lancaster Mission that flew 912 Air Miles each way.      
But I am always eager to learn, if any of you know of such a mission, please post same for all to see.  
posted but somehow weight reduction and extra tanks are only allowed for b17 not for lancasters     
  
 The mission to Trondhiem (I guess he means the bombing one and not the leaflet dropping one) dropped maximum 4000lbs/aircarft at 15000ft in 43 YES! Absolutely true! But it was 2,200 miles round trip! OOPS, I forgot to add "Almost" to the prior sentance just to be perfectly accurate!
so you are saying that the citation for the medals awarded lied when they said 1900?
 
  So far I havent found a Lancaster mision to Trondheim but I have found an earlier BC mission in May 42 when Wellingtons dropped 4000lbs/Aircraft loads fom 14000ft (I discouned the Hampdens attacking the Tripitz with 1500lbs torpedoes as that would just make the some of the B17 with 2000lbs loads look bad)
So, there are three points; 1. The B-17 that carried only 2000 pounds was the B/C/D variants.
no actually it was ALL B17s until the Tokyo tanks were installed B/C/D were irrelevant being so few in number I don't even bother looking at them
 
 2. the Lancaster and the missions above were all flown from Scotland and were little more than half the distance that the American B-17s flew! 3. This illistrates the altitude factor well!
 
you really don't have a clue do you? the BC raids on Trondheim were actually flown from airbases that were later assigned to the 8th the Lancaster raid on tonso was far longer than the B17 on Trondhiem
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/14/2013 6:01:03 PM
and just a final word, from a gentleman who has been collating BC losses and causalties for the last 40 years
"By the end of the war, RAF Bomber Command had flown 372,650 sorties and
lost 8,617 aircraft and 47,268 aircrew"
     My only question is why do his numbers differ from those of the RAF/BC?    
I lied, I have two questions. How does this change the fact that the RAF-BC lost roughly TWICE as many crew members as the USAAF in about half as many sorties? 
 

they don't, what you have their is someone who has spent 40 years collating loss figures for BC and USAAF and researching the data, what YOU have is rough estimate based on civil service numbers
 
this is the problem with you, you take a number and because you think it matches your idea you don't/wont look at it in depth
number from this era are rarely cut and dried and their are often multiple options assuming one is correct without looking into it shows a lack of analysis skills
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/14/2013 6:16:17 PM
 I never said it was an American invention and we were forced to use it because cloud cover hid the targets.
that could bomb no better, and actually no higher with any accuracy, It was the RAF that stated that less than half the bombs they dropped landed inside the city limits!
in 1940! by 43 when you lot arrived they were doing a damn site better
Both the USAAF and RAF post war surveys agree that agaisnt the SAME target the RAF night bombing by 44 was as accurate as the USAAF You forgot the word "Almost"!
true I did, but compared to your omission's its a very minor one

  And all the tonnage dropped before the middle of 1944? Right!

where did I say that, misdirection again trying to wriggle out again I see


You are right, you did not say it, I did! 
and I say tweet tweet which makes as much sense as your statement
 
This despite the obvious great advances made in aircraft design between 1934 and 1937-1941 (Manchester that evolves into the Lancaster) and the demonstrated greater adaptability of the Lancaster to meet changing conditions? And in the same time, the B-17A/B/C/D TURNED into the B-17 E/F/G which was in most ways a completely different plane than the early versions!
wrong, if you look their is actually not that much difference between the D and E other than the tail and weaponary the bomb bay which is what we are discussing was exactly the same between all models
Not quite. The new tail fixed several serrious problems and the verticle stringers that carried the racks were strengthened twice, once with the E and a second time with the G.
secondly we are only considering the F/G anyway.
sorry but their were NO changes to the racks between the F and G if you had read either of the B17 books I pointed you to you would have read that and the tail did not change the bomb bay size or the tankage or the wings or  well fill the rest in yourself

    The E/F/G was a newer plane than the Lancaster which was little changed from the start and with the exception of the wing stretch and extra engines. IE the fuse was unchanged in any major way!    
the basic B17 was an older design and was a dead end it was basically a airliner with bombs no a properly designed bomber     
No, it was the other way around, it was a bomber that was converted into a air linner. 
I think you will find that it was based around a boeing design for an airliner
 
the wing redesign was for the change to 4 engines from 2 even though the 4 weren't that much more powerfull then the 2 (but were much more reliable the Manchester engines had a 150 hour overhaul schedule)
But those did not last to the end of the first or second flight, IIRC. Their average was under 12 hours, again IIRC. But you post the history of that engine for us all to see.
 
sorry but I don't jump to your posts you want the info you find it, (but 12 hours is bull and you know it, they were horribly unreliable but that does not change the fact that overhaul was 150hours, just because a lot didn't reach it does not change that fact - just like the fact that the cyclone was 500 hours didn't change the fact that they also didn't reach it) but  it does make your figure of 150 hours for the Merlin XX look stupid
 
source
The high Speed Internal Combustion Engine by Sir Harry R Ricardo LL.D. , F.R.S
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/14/2013 6:40:16 PM

shows how much you understand about control authority, a stable bomber can and often is light and responsive to control inputs
  Name one!
AS I have always agreed and stated the Lancaster DID carry more bombs on average than the B-17, but it was not because of aerodynamic superiority, but because of operational choices!
yes is was, the choice was a big bomb load(Lancaster) or a small one (B17)
-No it was a choice between low altitude and more casualties to be able to cary more bombs, or higher altitude with less bombs and fewer casualties! 
 
 The B-17 is aerodynamically superior to the Lancaster. Both planes standard versions, >8,000 Gs Vs <7,400 Lancs which could cary a weight, regardless of how, of 17,600 to 18,000 pounds.
 
the same TOW and the same altitude and speed! Because AAA is very much more effective the lower you go, the choise to go higher,
then why did the USAAF lose so many bombers to flak? But we did not loos nearly as many planes to flack as the RAF! Most of our casualties were to fighter planes, while most of the RAF-BC's losses were to flak!
      at night their was actually no benefit in higher altitudeBecause the RAF High Command made the choise to take more casualties rather than interupt production.   
with ALL that that entials means that the RAF-BC took more dead and wounded in spite of flying in the dark which makes the most effective part of the deffense less effective, IE the fighter, at least as stated by the RAF-BC!
but only with huge fighter escort as unescorted the daylight raids were suicide unless performed against light defences  
    Never said they were otherwise. This is not part of the argument. The RAF had already decided that they were not able to attack in the day light. They did not have a long range fighter plane, the Lancaster and other heavies were not strong enough, well enough armored or armed to operate in the day light.
    Not according to the "Official Strategic Bombing Survey Unit" of the RAF!
No mater how you slice it the weight of bombs carried depends on other factors besides the maximum bomb load that can be carried!  
yes true The only reason that the Lanc "Averaged" more bombs per mission is because of Tactical/strategic choises that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the plane's ability to lift a load!
only within the limits of the aircraft,
Does a heavier load restrict the Lanc's range? 
Then why was the the "Average" bomb load of the lancaster about 8000 pounds?
that's why it wasn't it was 10500lbs
Not according to the "Official Strategic Bombing Survey Unit" of the RAF!  While all of this is true on it's face, it is totally irrealivant! The B-17's bomb bay was not that small, it was twice as wide and two and a half times as tall as the lancaster's bay!
twice as wide is complete bull the B17 could take 4 x 500lbs across the bays a Lanc could carry 3 so just how is that twice? Because it could also take four 2,000 pounders to the Lanc's one down the center. At least untill the buldged the bay doors!
 In other words, except for the maximum length, the two bays were very close in total volume!                                                    
not in usable volume as is clear when you look at what bombs could be carried 4 1000lb max for the B17 and 14 for the Lancaster 


Actually, the later model Lancs with Packard engines and the buldged doors could, over very short ranges carry 18 times 1000 pound SHORT FIN Bombs! So it is 18 thousand pounds of bombs for the Lancaster, unless it is required to fly with full tanks at over 25,000' altitude. But like I've always pointed out, and the RAF-BC stated in their Strategic Bombing Survey Unit report, The Lancaster's average was about 8,000 pounds per sortie! The B-17 "AVERAGED" less than 5000 pounds! But the part that you continue to ignore is the difference in altitude and the resulting casualties!
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/14/2013 7:11:31 PM
A bomber that is light and responsive to control inputs?
 
Victor
Valiant
Vulcan
 
Canberra also fits.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38   NEXT



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics