A Lancaster in New Zealand
Mekon
aviation section some distance away from the main exhibits, many visitors
leave without taking the ten minute walk to the hangar around the corner.
Outside is a Hurricane on a stick, but take two steps inside the hangar and
there she stands. A perfectly preserved Lancaster,. She looks like she just
came off the assembly line her engines still drip a little oil on the wheel
covers, her guns are all in place and manequins reenact loading her bomb
bay.
I had no idea she was there and could hardly believe I was in the presence
of such a marvelous machine.
She was completed in 1945 and given to the French who then passed it on to
New Zealand.
I doubt she has ever fired a shot in anger.
Mekon
Singanas@Texasgulfcoast
If it looks well maintained, then it is well preserved... by locals.
In the US it is the "Confederate Airforce" which maintains WW2
aircraft. To step thru their functioning B-17 will cost you $10.
It was a catwalk I will never forget. Six inches wide, fore to aft.
Cheers, David H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mekon
"Singanas@Texasgulfcoast" <dcho...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:1163062139....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >
> > Mekon
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> If it looks well maintained, then it is well preserved... by locals.
> In the US it is the "Confederate Airforce" which maintains WW2
> aircraft. To step thru their functioning B-17 will cost you $10.
> It was a catwalk I will never forget. Six inches wide, fore to aft.
I was wondering if an er... donation would get me the same privilege
Mekon
a.spencer3
"Mekon" <blank...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xwC4h.61757$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Cry your eyes out ... one of my fondest memories is flying a Lanc in the
1950s ... absolutely and totally xxxxxxxxxxing unforgettable!!
Surreyman
Mekon
"a.spencer3" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:C1D4h.2739$371...@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
I really really really don't like you. Almost as much as the fellow I went
to school with I talked to him at a 30 year reunion he told me how he left
school and flew fighters for the RAN then switched to the RN to fly
Harriers.
/envy OFF
My dad flew in one once, still talks about it fifty years on.
Mekon
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
"Mekon" <blank...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%vD4h.61805$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
ja...@rapiermedia.net
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> What's so overwhelming special about the Lancaster?
>
Maybe it is special because it is a major piece of history and the
iconic RAF bomber of WWII, in the same way as the B-17 is for the USAF
(or USAAF as it was then).
But then what would you know about history?
You seem to think it is relevant to Medieval history as you added that
group to the list.
(Note, groups reduced to those with relevance to topic)
Jason
a.spencer3
<ja...@rapiermedia.net> wrote in message
news:1163091722.1...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> > What's so overwhelming special about the Lancaster?
> >
>
>
> Maybe it is special because it is a major piece of history and the
> iconic RAF bomber of WWII, in the same way as the B-17 is for the USAF
> (or USAAF as it was then).
>
> But then what would you know about history?
>
> You seem to think it is relevant to Medieval history as you added that
> group to the list.
>
> (Note, groups reduced to those with relevance to topic)
>
>
character of their own to fly.
Surreyman
D. Spencer Hines
Good Reasons All.
DSH
<ja...@rapiermedia.net> wrote in message
news:1163091722.1...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>> What's so overwhelming special about the Lancaster?
>>
> Maybe it is special because it is a major piece of history and the
> iconic RAF bomber of WWII, in the same way as the B-17 is for the USAF
> (or USAAF as it was then).
"a.spencer3" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:FkJ4h.10053$rn6....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
Julian Richards
<pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>What's so overwhelming special about the Lancaster?
Alan has compared the Lancaster as being to the RAF as the B17 was to
the USAAF. Perhaps an even better comparison would be as the B17 and
the B29 of the RAF combined. There were other notable bombers,
Wellington, and even more so the Halifax but the comparison still
stands.
--
Julian Richards
www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"
THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
Sheila J
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6UI4h.279$7L1....@eagle.america.net...
Spoken like someone who has never flown in one. I had the opportunity about
10 years ago to fly in the one (of only 2, I believe in Canada) that is
privately owned by a gentleman from Hamilton. We flew from Hamilton down to
Port Dover and back. IT WAS amazing...if for no othe reason than the fact
that I appreciate what a critical air power role in played in the Second
World War.
Ray O'Hara
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6UI4h.279$7L1....@eagle.america.net...
it did the heavy lifting for the RAF it killed more women children and
other civilians than any other weapon in history
ErrolC
Lots of info on this Lanc here:
http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/lanc.html#tour
Errol Cavit | "I long for the day when we can match the Germans in the
sky, 'plane for 'plane. When that day dawns, Germany is beaten. We know
by experience that we can whack his land forces, tanks included, any
day of the week." Private L.A.Diamond, 23 NZ Batt, 1941
Eric Stevens
Among other things it would lift a heavier bombload than any other
aircraft flying in WW2.
Eric Stevens
William Black
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:pm27l2hvu6klm7nf0...@4ax.com...
>
>>What's so overwhelming special about the Lancaster?
>
> Among other things it would lift a heavier bombload than any other
> aircraft flying in WW2.
Only in very special cases with special engines and special crews.
The B-29 carries more in standard trim.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Mekon
"Ray O'Hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:26qdnc-_vqBGH87Y...@comcast.com...
I think Zyklon B has that particular distinction.
Mekon
William Black
Don't be silly.
He's a 'plastic paddy'.
All war crimes are always committed by the evil British.
John Gilbert
If you don't put a time limit on it, I am sure knives or swords hold the
cumulative record, although the bare fist might have an outside chance
too...
If you want to talk about specific, individual items, it would have to be
the Hiroshima bomb.
John Gilbert
Hal
I'd give that to clubs, knives, swords (edged weapons) and guns, with
(generic) clubs being the most probable, and the rest following in that
order.
Hal
Mekon
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ej02tk$nrl$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
>
(snip)
> >
> > Among other things it would lift a heavier bombload than any other
> > aircraft flying in WW2.
>
> Only in very special cases with special engines and special crews.
>
> The B-29 carries more in standard trim.
Not that special. According to Alan Cooper (Beyond the dams to the Tirpitz,
Goodall Publications,1991 The 12,000lb Tall boy was a regular load for 617
Squadron, which although initially made up of special crews, after the dams
raid replacements soon outnumbered the original 'special' crews. And what
was it that made them 'special' They were experienced - so were many others,
they had a lot of training flying very low - Almost useless when carrying
bombs of that size. The 22,000lb Grand Slam was carried in the B1 Lanc, it
had four 1280 HP Merlin engines, (The Mk V Spitfire used the Merlin 45
1440HP) The bomb bay was enlarged, undercart strengthened and the top turret
removed. For all that it remained the same aircraft. The B1 was no more of a
different aircraft than the Mark V was from the Mk IX
Mekon
Mekon
Hal
I'd give that to clubs, knives, swords (edged weapons) and guns, with
(generic) clubs being the most probable, in that order. Lancasters are
far behind
Hal
Sheila J
"Hal" <Spam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163112308.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
..the lowly machete probably killed 800,000 in little over 3 months. That
speed wasn't even matched by Hitler's gas chambers...
Martin
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ej02tk$nrl$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> news:pm27l2hvu6klm7nf0...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 16:42:14 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
> > <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >>What's so overwhelming special about the Lancaster?
> >
> > Among other things it would lift a heavier bombload than any other
> > aircraft flying in WW2.
>
> Only in very special cases with special engines and special crews.
>
> The B-29 carries more in standard trim.
If they have any problems regarding radio equiment, I have an R1155A in *much
more* then prime condition, which they might be interested in (mosfet product
detector, SSB filters, cascode E88CC SQ front end, CA3189E NBFMdiscriminator,
stabilised PSU, amplified AGC, two extra bands, internal speaker, 10W AF amp....
and a 100 watt AM/SSB/CW/FM transmitter which works off the dial, in the same
case. Unfortunately, the DF gear had to go to make room, but.....
William Black
"Martin" <martin...@spamfuktiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4554b...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
Very sad.
Martin
It would be, were one's compass blown away, flying on a wing and a prayer, badly
shot up and low on fuel with two engines out and a missing rudder... relying on
that precious, weak radio signal to get home. "Where has the plug for the visual
indicator gone, and why can't I get Droitwich on Band 5?" some anxious,
desperate Wireless Operator/Navigator say...
Soren Larsen
Here a some pictures of some unique transportation, if you are in the
market:
http://fishki.net/comment.php?id=13675
A German! T-34 being dragged out of a Russian bog.
Soren Larsen
--
History is not what it used to be.
William Black
"Martin" <martin...@spamfuktiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4554b...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
> It would be, were one's compass blown away, flying on a wing and a prayer,
> badly
> shot up and low on fuel with two engines out and a missing rudder...
> relying on
> that precious, weak radio signal to get home. "Where has the plug for the
> visual
> indicator gone, and why can't I get Droitwich on Band 5?" some anxious,
> desperate Wireless Operator/Navigator say...
>
And when, pray tell, was that last an issue for anyone?
I worked with men who had been Lancaster radio operators, indeed I see one
now and again in Marks and Spencer in the warmer days (he winters in New
Zealand) and he's now 84 years of age...
Martin
"Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message
news:4554bcca$0$13942$edfa...@dread15.news.tele.dk...
Thanks Soren.
What a beauty. That is *quality* engineering, not even a scratch on the paint.
Charge the battery, drop of fuel, remove the driver's bones, and I bet she'd go
first time!
They don't make'em like that any more. I'd really like to know what she's
painted with, as I could do with some of that for my cars - even a mild English
winter will ensure they rust to lacework in a few years, never mind a Russian
bog for 60 years... but then, was it Russian paint, or did the Germans give her
a respray?
Reminds me of Close Combat III actually, ate Russians and Germans seem to have
exchanged tanks like they do cars today. Must play...
T 34's have been reckoned the best tank of all time by some, though I'm unsure.
When it comes to anti-perforation warranties, that may well be right. Plenty
were made, and many survive - like those ones that were dressed up with plywood
to look like Tiger Mk VI's in Kelly's Heroes and Saving Pte Ryan.
I want one....
Cheers
Martin
William Black
"Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message
news:4554bcca$0$13942$edfa...@dread15.news.tele.dk...
> Here a some pictures of some unique transportation, if you are in the
> market:
>
> http://fishki.net/comment.php?id=13675
>
> A German! T-34 being dragged out of a Russian bog.
It's in very good condition indeed for something that has been in a bog for
half a century, and I notice that the bow machine gun is missing.
Is some rich but stupid collector being set up here?
I only mention this because it's an article of faith amongst all collectors
that any item of purportedly German equipment from WWII is always a fake
unless there's valid provenance in written form available from a third
party.
As the T-34 is reasonably freely available on the open market at about
£3,000 ($5,000US) a copy it seems possible that...
Soren Larsen
> "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message
> news:4554bcca$0$13942$edfa...@dread15.news.tele.dk...
>
>> Here a some pictures of some unique transportation, if you are in the
>> market:
>>
>> http://fishki.net/comment.php?id=13675
>>
>> A German! T-34 being dragged out of a Russian bog.
>
> It's in very good condition indeed for something that has been in a
> bog for half a century, and I notice that the bow machine gun is
> missing.
> Is some rich but stupid collector being set up here?
>
> I only mention this because it's an article of faith amongst all
> collectors that any item of purportedly German equipment from WWII
> is always a fake unless there's valid provenance in written form
> available from a third party.
>
> As the T-34 is reasonably freely available on the open market at about
> £3,000 ($5,000US) a copy it seems possible that...
Always a possibilty, but I'm not that surpriced over the good condition
having seen ironage weapons in almost mint condition from bogs.
I guess that it would be hard to fake a tank since a lot of the parts
could traceable in either Russian or German archives.
The missing machinegun could simply mean that the tank was stipped and
dumped after being recaptured..
Really not my field though.
george
> "Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:pm27l2hvu6klm7nf0...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 16:42:14 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
> > <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >>What's so overwhelming special about the Lancaster?
> >
> > Among other things it would lift a heavier bombload than any other
> > aircraft flying in WW2.
>
> Only in very special cases with special engines and special crews.
>
> The B-29 carries more in standard trim.
>
Mr Barnes Wallaces devices were carried by Lancs and ISTR that they
unable to be carried by any other bomber....
The Lanc in MOTAT is an exFrench Coastal Defence Lancaster
Martin
>
> "Martin" <martin...@spamfuktiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4554b...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> >
>
> > It would be, were one's compass blown away, flying on a wing and a prayer,
> > badly
> > shot up and low on fuel with two engines out and a missing rudder...
> > relying on
> > that precious, weak radio signal to get home. "Where has the plug for the
> > visual
> > indicator gone, and why can't I get Droitwich on Band 5?" some anxious,
> > desperate Wireless Operator/Navigator say...
> >
> And when, pray tell, was that last an issue for anyone?
>
> I worked with men who had been Lancaster radio operators, indeed I see one
> now and again in Marks and Spencer in the warmer days (he winters in New
> Zealand) and he's now 84 years of age...
Hmmmm... well, I suppose Droitwich wouldn't be much use, point taken.
Vince
That is simply a question of design. The Lancaster's Payload was half
that of the B-29 naturally the B-29 was a much bigger aircraft
Payload is divided among fuel bombload and defensive weapons and armor.
Vince
Dean A. Markley
on Tokyo and Dresden.
Dean
Eric Stevens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster
"B.VII NX665 with H2S radar is preserved at Auckland's Museum of
Transport and Technology. This aircraft served with the Aeronavale
until the 1960s, when it was presented to the museum. The airframe
originally lacked the mid-upper turret, having been built with the
mountings for a Martin 250CE. An earlier FN50 was retrofitted in
the late '80s. This required modifications to the aircraft's
structure as the turret mounts had to be moved rearwards."
Eric Stevens
Greg Hennessy
>>
>Mr Barnes Wallaces devices were carried by Lancs and ISTR that they
>unable to be carried by any other bomber....
Incorrect, the B-29 could and did carry Tallboy in pairs and Grand Slam.
Unlike the Lanc it could also carry them to what Barnes Wallis considered
optimum release altitude.
http://members.aol.com/nukeinfo2/
greg
--
"He's raising an unholy army of singing dinosaurs!"
Singanas@Texasgulfcoast
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mekon,
First a question. Now that I know the Lancaster had 4 props, was
this aircraft the backbone of British night bombing of the Reich ? Or
did
the British slowly switch to B-17's ?
The CAF has most of it's aircraft at a base in the lower Rio Grande
valley
of Texas on account of the fair climate. There may be squadrons based
in many other parts of the US. The Houston squadron is at the Westside
Airport. The CAF airshows are held at Ellington Field in SE Houston,
an
Airforce base originally constructed for training WW1 pilots.
There is a CAF hangar at Westside, complete with WW2 ready room and
flight briefings when all the old birds arrive for the airshow parade.
The Zeros
come in with real Japanese pilots. The others were not obvious to me
except
the inverted gullwing Corsair, the B-17, and perhaps the Wildcat. (
Remember,
I was 4 on V-E Day.)
You said you wished for the opportunity to pay $10 for a B-17 catwalk
walk.
Americans wish there were more like you. These aircraft were once
maintained
voluntarily by WW2 mechanics in their 60's and 70's. Now they are gone,
and
the new generation of radial engine enthusiasts can't afford to do
aircraft
maintenance without pay. Slowly these flying legends will have to be
grounded.
One bomber has already crashed for lack of more thorough maintenance.
I think it was a Flying Fortress.
Cheers, David H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
george
Greg Hennessy wrote:
> On 10 Nov 2006 11:31:09 -0800, "george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >Mr Barnes Wallaces devices were carried by Lancs and ISTR that they
> >unable to be carried by any other bomber....
>
> Incorrect, the B-29 could and did carry Tallboy in pairs and Grand Slam.
>
> Unlike the Lanc it could also carry them to what Barnes Wallis considered
> optimum release altitude.
and at that time the Lanc was the only heavy bomber that was
operational
> http://members.aol.com/nukeinfo2/
>
In 1942 the Lanc was an operational bomber.
The B29 was test flown September 1942
The dams were bombed May 16th, 1943 which is around the reported date
when the fiirst B29s began coming off the assembly lines..
Greg Hennessy
>
>> Unlike the Lanc it could also carry them to what Barnes Wallis considered
>> optimum release altitude.
>
>and at that time the Lanc was the only heavy bomber that was
>operational
>
>> http://members.aol.com/nukeinfo2/
>>
>
>In 1942 the Lanc was an operational bomber.
>The B29 was test flown September 1942
>The dams were bombed May 16th, 1943 which is around the reported date
>when the fiirst B29s began coming off the assembly lines..
I suggest figuring out who designed Tallboy and Grand Slam.
george
Mekon
"Singanas@Texasgulfcoast" <dcho...@ev1.net> wrote in message
(snip)
> Mekon,
>
> First a question. Now that I know the Lancaster had 4 props, was
> this aircraft the backbone of British night bombing of the Reich ? Or
> did
> the British slowly switch to B-17's ?
Lancs were the backbone of Bomber Command for not just the night bombing but
also the daylight raids. There may have been some B17s flying with the RAF
I remember seeing a picture of one (btw I have also seen pics of them in
Nazi colours) but there was no general conversion. The Lanc could easily out
carry the B17, there was no need to change.
>
> The CAF has most of it's aircraft at a base in the lower Rio Grande
> valley
> of Texas on account of the fair climate. There may be squadrons based
> in many other parts of the US. The Houston squadron is at the Westside
> Airport. The CAF airshows are held at Ellington Field in SE Houston,
> an
> Airforce base originally constructed for training WW1 pilots.
>
> There is a CAF hangar at Westside, complete with WW2 ready room and
> flight briefings when all the old birds arrive for the airshow parade.
> The Zeros
> come in with real Japanese pilots. The others were not obvious to me
> except
> the inverted gullwing Corsair, the B-17, and perhaps the Wildcat. (
> Remember,
> I was 4 on V-E Day.)
>
> You said you wished for the opportunity to pay $10 for a B-17 catwalk
> walk.
> Americans wish there were more like you. These aircraft were once
> maintained
> voluntarily by WW2 mechanics in their 60's and 70's.
I didn't have a lot of choice in my passion for all things aviation, I was
an Air Force brat (first RAF then RAAF) and grew up on the legends of the
air.
I have a Biggles collection that some have envied (yet I have seen several
much better than mine) and I fly every chance I get. A friend is switching
from ATC to the left hand seat of a 767 so I may get a jump seat ride one
day soon!
>Now they are gone,
> and
> the new generation of radial engine enthusiasts can't afford to do
> aircraft
> maintenance without pay. Slowly these flying legends will have to be
> grounded.
> One bomber has already crashed for lack of more thorough maintenance.
> I think it was a Flying Fortress.
>
> Cheers, David H
My Dad is an interesting bloke to take to an air museum, he sees an old
battered engine and instantly knows the aircraft it came from then tells the
stories like how hard it is to set the valves or change the oil filters on
it. He has fixed engines all his life from Spitfires to Phantoms and F111s.
And yes, even the legendary Lanc.
One day I hope to fly in the Canadian Lancaster closer to home there is a
Beaufighter under restoration, so with a little luck and a fair breeze I may
get a ride on her.
Mekon
Greg Hennessy
Which were 'devices' carried by platforms (B-29 and B-36) other than the
Lanc, contrary to your assertion of.
"Mr Barnes Wallaces devices were carried by Lancs and ISTR that they
unable to be carried by any other bomber...."
guy
Mekon wrote:
> "Singanas@Texasgulfcoast" <dcho...@ev1.net> wrote in message
> (snip)
> > Mekon,
> >
> > First a question. Now that I know the Lancaster had 4 props, was
> > this aircraft the backbone of British night bombing of the Reich ? Or
> > did
> > the British slowly switch to B-17's ?
>
>
> Lancs were the backbone of Bomber Command for not just the night bombing but
> also the daylight raids. There may have been some B17s flying with the RAF
> I remember seeing a picture of one (btw I have also seen pics of them in
> Nazi colours) but there was no general conversion. The Lanc could easily out
> carry the B17, there was no need to change.
>
yes I think B17s were used overseas and there was I believe a raid on
Tirpitz by very early B17s which was intercepted by BF109 Ts originally
built for the Graf Zeppelin - they took advantage of the bigger wing to
improve altitude performance.
comparing the B17 and Lanc is difficult - they evolved into very
different machines.
Night bombers did not need the guns or crew of a day bomber and could
put the weight into bombs or fuel.
guy
Julian Richards
wrote:
The Lancaster's special bombs were designed especially for specific
targets in the European theatre. The standard US bomber in Europe was
the B17 not the B29. The USAAF was content to let the RAF attack these
special targets rather than send B29s to Europe just to drop a
comparatively small number of special bombs.
--
Julian Richards
www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"
THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
Greg Hennessy
<jul...@spam-me-not.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Mr B Wallis !
>>>See http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/irmurray/wallis.asp
>>
>>Which were 'devices' carried by platforms (B-29 and B-36) other than the
>>Lanc, contrary to your assertion of.
>>
>>"Mr Barnes Wallaces devices were carried by Lancs and ISTR that they
>>unable to be carried by any other bomber...."
>
>The Lancaster's special bombs were designed especially for specific
>targets in the European theatre. The standard US bomber in Europe was
>the B17 not the B29. The USAAF was content to let the RAF attack these
>special targets rather than send B29s to Europe just to drop a
>comparatively small number of special bombs.
Which ignores US preparations for dropping both Tallboy and Grand Slam over
Japan, test drops of both against U Boat pens by B29s in operation ruby,
and the use of guided Tallboy over North Korea to drop bridges.
greg
Julian Richards
wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:09:26 +0000, Julian Richards
But we are referring to special bombs actually used in WW2 in Europe.
george
Greg Hennessy wrote:
> On 11 Nov 2006 11:20:14 -0800, "george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Greg Hennessy wrote:
> >
> >> On 10 Nov 2006 19:06:53 -0800, "george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> >> Unlike the Lanc it could also carry them to what Barnes Wallis considered
> >> >> optimum release altitude.
> >> >
> >> >and at that time the Lanc was the only heavy bomber that was
> >> >operational
> >> >
> >> >> http://members.aol.com/nukeinfo2/
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >In 1942 the Lanc was an operational bomber.
> >> >The B29 was test flown September 1942
> >> >The dams were bombed May 16th, 1943 which is around the reported date
> >> >when the fiirst B29s began coming off the assembly lines..
> >>
> >> I suggest figuring out who designed Tallboy and Grand Slam.
> >
> >Mr B Wallis !
> >See http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/irmurray/wallis.asp
>
> Which were 'devices' carried by platforms (B-29 and B-36) other than the
> Lanc, contrary to your assertion of.
What part of "In 1943 the B29 was just coming into production." eludes
you
In 1942 the Lanc was an operational bomber.
The B29 was test flown September 1942
The dams were bombed May 16th, 1943 which is around the reported date
when the fiirst B29s began coming off the assembly lines..
> "Mr Barnes Wallaces devices were carried by Lancs and ISTR that they
> unable to be carried by any other bomber...."
Because there was only the Lanc that could carry such a bomb in 1943
The B17 had a bomb load of 3000 lb
The B24 had a bomb load of 8,800 lb
The Lanc had a bomb load of 63,000 lb
The "Grand Slam", a 22,000 pound special purpose bomb
The "Upkeep" mine, 9250 pound 'bouncing bomb'
Vince
???
63,000 pounds
Surely you jest
Specifications (Lancaster Mk I):
Engines: Four 1,460 hp Rolls-Royce Merlin XX inline piston engines.
Weight: Empty 36,900 lbs, Maximum Takeoff 68,000 lbs.
Vince
george
Vince wrote:
> 63,000 pounds
>
> Surely you jest
> Specifications (Lancaster Mk I):
> Engines: Four 1,460 hp Rolls-Royce Merlin XX inline piston engines.
> Weight: Empty 36,900 lbs, Maximum Takeoff 68,000 lbs.
>
Yup. You're correct.
The weights I should have used for the Lanc bomb load were Maximum:
22,000 lb
and usually 14,000 lb
In the 8th Air Force, the normal tactical bomb load of the B-24 was
5,000 lb
and the average B-17 bomb load was between 4,000 lb and 5,000 lb..
After 1944 the B29 arrived and had a bombload of 20,000 lb ....
Great range great altitude but still carrying the same load as a Lanc
tomcervo
were a bit tight for a man in full flying gear, and the ones in the
Halifax were not, so a crew bailing out of a Halifax had a higher
survival rate.
I mean, the Lanc was so well engineered, you'd think they'd have
brought in a man in full kit to test the hatches.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On 11 Nov 2006 11:20:14 -0800, "george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
They could also be carried by the B52. Probaly also the space shuttle.
Eric Stevens
William Black
"tomcervo" <tomc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1163393987....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
time.
a.spencer3
main body to the tail gunner was bloody suicidally narrow! (However, I
believe the tail gunner could escape direct from the gun 'bubble'?).
Surreyman
tomcervo
William Black wrote:
> "tomcervo" <tomc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1163393987....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > The fact that stands out for me was that the escape hatches in the Lanc
> > were a bit tight for a man in full flying gear, and the ones in the
> > Halifax were not, so a crew bailing out of a Halifax had a higher
> > survival rate.
> > I mean, the Lanc was so well engineered, you'd think they'd have
> > brought in a man in full kit to test the hatches.
> >
> Escape hatch size was not a priority in the design of bomber aircraft of the
> time.
Someone will probably write a study showing exactly how Britain's
postwar technological decline may be ascribed to the practise of
collecting the nation's most technically adept young men and sending
them over Germany in airplanes from which fewer than half would survive
being shot down.
guy
IIRC the quad 13mm tail tuuret on some He177?/277? was virtually
impossible, you had to unsrew the control stick open the doors and jump
out - but you could only do this in level flight!
Guy
Ulysses at Langdale Tarn
I wonder how hard it was to escape the lower gun bubble of a B-17.
I have seen more than one film/video/comics drama of a gunner doomed
because the bottom turret jammed in the wrong position after the ring
gear or drive motor had been hit with a Jerry round.
Cheers, David H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TOliver
"Ulysses at Langdale Tarn" <dcho...@ev1.net> wrote .....
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I wonder how hard it was to escape the lower gun bubble of a B-17.
> I have seen more than one film/video/comics drama of a gunner doomed
> because the bottom turret jammed in the wrong position after the ring
> gear or drive motor had been hit with a Jerry round.
>
One can only hope that no potential Albert Einsteins were among the short,
slim young men assigned to ball-turret school before matriculating to the
8th AF. The B-24 shared the same rig (and an even greater likelihood that
the turret, unless able to be cranked up into the fuselkage for the gunner
to exit, might be scraped off in a normal landing.
>
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
<1163334996.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
guyswe...@googlemail.com (guy) wrote:
> yes I think B17s were used overseas and there was I believe a
> raid on Tirpitz by very early B17
Twenty B17C were supplied to the RAF (Fortress I), after losses
the remainder were diverted to Coastal Command or the Middle
East. The RAF got 45 B17E in 1942(Fortress IA), Coastal Command
got 19 B17F (Fortress II) and the RAF 85 B17G (Fortress III).
The B17G was the major production model with 8,680 being
completed. Loaded weight of a B17G was 55,000lbs, loaded weight
of a Lancaster Mk I was 68,000lbs.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
fir...@firelaw.us (Vince) wrote:
> Weight: Empty 36,900 lbs, Maximum Takeoff 68,000 lbs.
70,000lbs with the Grand Slam.
Ken Young
george
Eric Stevens wrote:
> They could also be carried by the B52. Probaly also the space shuttle.
When the Lanc arrived at MOTAT I had a bit to do with it and have
maintained an interest in it throughout.
These claims for the B29 being able to carry the Barnes Wallace bombs
is very interesting especially as there were no B29 equipped squadrons
in the UK until 1946
Eric Stevens
That was the point I was trying to make.
Eric Stevens
mike
> These claims for the B29 being able to carry the Barnes Wallace bombs
> is very interesting especially as there were no B29 equipped squadrons
> in the UK until 1946
Not in Squadron strength, but did visit sooner
B-29 with Grandslam
http://members.aol.com/nukeinfo2/wb29GrandSlam.jpg
B-29 with two Tallboys
http://members.aol.com/nukeinfo2/B29withdualTallboyinstallationdetail2.jpg
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1967/mar-apr/coker.html
B-29 dropping the T12 bomb, 2x the weight of Grandslam, postwar
**
mike
**
george
mike wrote:
Great photos. Thanks for them.
Now, if only the B29 had been available in the European theatre
renab...@aol.com
SNIP
The decision was made that they weren't needed there, so off to China
they went and begain operations around (IIRC) Nov 1944
Julian Richards
>Great photos. Thanks for them.
>Now, if only the B29 had been available in the European theatre
If there had been some in Europe, then there would have been less in
the Far East where it's long range abilities were needed most.
Singanas@Texasgulfcoast
ErrolC wrote:
> Mekon wrote:
> > In Auckland's Museum of Transport and Technology (MOTAT) There is an
> > aviation section some distance away from the main exhibits, many visitors
> > leave without taking the ten minute walk to the hangar around the corner.
> > Outside is a Hurricane on a stick, but take two steps inside the hangar and
> > there she stands. A perfectly preserved Lancaster,. She looks like she just
> > came off the assembly line her engines still drip a little oil on the wheel
> > covers, her guns are all in place and manequins reenact loading her bomb
> > bay.
> > I had no idea she was there and could hardly believe I was in the presence
> > of such a marvelous machine.
> > She was completed in 1945 and given to the French who then passed it on to
> > New Zealand.
> > I doubt she has ever fired a shot in anger.
>
> Lots of info on this Lanc here:
> http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/lanc.html#tour
>
> Errol Cavit | "I long for the day when we can match the Germans in the
> sky, 'plane for 'plane. When that day dawns, Germany is beaten. We know
> by experience that we can whack his land forces, tanks included, any
> day of the week." Private L.A.Diamond, 23 NZ Batt, 1941
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Did the Lancaster bomber have a pressurised cabin like the B-29 ?
I was told that the B-17 was not pressurised.
Cheers, David H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mekon
(snip)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Did the Lancaster bomber have a pressurised cabin like the B-29 ?
No.
> I was told that the B-17 was not pressurised.
>
What you were told is correct.remember the scenes out of any B17 movie ever
made of the waist gunners shooting out of great big holes in the side? Those
holes would have made pressurisation problematic,
Mekon
a.spencer3
"Singanas@Texasgulfcoast" <dcho...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:1164069303....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
leaked like sieves anyway! :-))
Surreyman
Mekon
"a.spencer3" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bAz8h.17235$371....@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
(snip)
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> I don't think the Lancs were ever pressurised, were they? The ones I was
in
> leaked like sieves anyway! :-))
>
> Surreyman
>
>
You have to keep rubbing it in don't you? !! :)
One day perhaps I will get to clamber over one...
Mekon
a.spencer3
"Mekon" <blank...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OAB8h.69641$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Sorry, cobber - unintentional this time! :-))
Surreyman
Singanas@Texasgulfcoast
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What were the flight ceilings for the Lanc, B-17 and B-29 ?
At what altitudes did their radial or spiral cylinder banks start
sputtering on aviation gasoline ?
David H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mekon
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> What were the flight ceilings for the Lanc, B-17 and B-29 ?
> At what altitudes did their radial or spiral cylinder banks start
> sputtering on aviation gasoline ?
>
> David H
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
Aint Google marvelous?
Lancaster 24,500 ft Out of the 7377 Lancasters made only 300 (MkIIs) had
radial engines.
B17 35,600 ft
B29 31,850 ft
AFAIK Both Boeing B17 and B29 had radial engines.
Mekon
Singanas@Texasgulfcoast
Give me a break! Britain could not have possibly turned out
7000 heavy bombers during the War. And why would the B-17
have a higher operational ceiling than the B-29 which was a more
technologically advanced aircraft ?
Cheers, David H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mekon
>
> Mekon wrote:
> > "Singanas@Texasgulfcoast" <dcho...@ev1.net> wrote in message
> > news:1164191559.2...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > What were the flight ceilings for the Lanc, B-17 and B-29 ?
> > > At what altitudes did their radial or spiral cylinder banks start
> > > sputtering on aviation gasoline ?
> > >
> > > David H
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> >
> > Aint Google marvelous?
> >
> > Lancaster 24,500 ft Out of the 7377 Lancasters made only 300 (MkIIs) had
> > radial engines.
> > B17 35,600 ft
> > B29 31,850 ft
> > AFAIK Both Boeing B17 and B29 had radial engines.
> >
> > Mekon
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Give me a break!
>Britain could not have possibly turned out
> 7000 heavy bombers during the War.
They didn't, 6947 were built in Britain and 430 were built in Canada
http://www.lancastermuseum.ca/lancavro.html
Here are some on line references for the 7337 figure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster
http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/avro-lancaster-1.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWavro.htm
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/lancaster.htm
Some on line references are of dubious quality but I would expect the RAF
museum to get it right. If a paper reference presents itself in the next few
days I'll post it.
> And why would the B-17
> have a higher operational ceiling than the B-29 which was a more
> technologically advanced aircraft ?
> Cheers, David H
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As most American history and aircraft bore me to tears I have NFI. However,
I would expect that the Boeing people have got their figures correct about
their own aircraft:
http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b17.html
and
http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b29.html
as for giving you a break, I'm happy to. Which arm?
Mekon
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
<1164339888.8...@45g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
dcho...@ev1.net (oast) wrote:
> Give me a break! Britain could not have possibly turned out
> 7000 heavy bombers during the War.
Aircraft of WW2 by K.G Munson
Lancaster 7,374
Halifax 6,176
Stirling 2,375
Total 15,925
As already pointed out these figures include Dominion production
mainly Canadian. The book gives different figures than quoted for
service ceilings for the B17 and B29 but still credits the B17 as
having the higher of the two.
Ken Young
Singanas@Texasgulfcoast
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Okay. You win. 7374 Lancasters and 6176 Halifaxes. What a
powerhouse Britain was. Makes you wonder how all that imported
aluminium
and steel was able to survive the Jerry wolf pack predations.
I think the U.S. built about 5500 Liberty Ships for the crusade in
Europe and
the Pacific Theatre. (the Japanese Empire).
Cheers, David H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
<1164535871....@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
dcho...@ev1.net (oast) wrote:
> Makes you wonder how all that imported
> aluminium and steel was able to survive the Jerry wolf pack
> predations.
Aluminium and steel were being produced in Britain as well of
course. However production of heavy bombers dated from a 1936
specification, actual production started in 1940 for the Stirling
and Halifax and 1941 for the Lancaster. Lancaster production was
delayed because Avro's first take at the specification resulted
in the Manchester let down by it's engines. That's five years or
so to produce them. An estimate I have seen is that British and
Empire production accounted for over 2/3 of the war material used
by British and Empire forces.
British survival was decided before the US entered the war by
the BOB and Barberossa. However I do not think we could have won
the war without help and I think Overlord would have been
impossible without US help.
Ken Young
Mekon
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:F9udnSWb69z...@pipex.net...
>
(snip)
> British survival was decided before the US entered the war by
> the BOB and Barberossa. However I do not think we could have won
> the war without help and I think Overlord would have been
> impossible without US help.
>
> Ken Young
Agreed, but I think Overlord was required by the US imperative of keeping
post war communism as far east as possible. If merely beating the Germans
was the objective, the Eastern Allies could have taken the far west sector
of the Russian Front and driven south with their Russian comrades.
Britain would have had a much harder time surviving if the Battle of the
Alantic hadn't turned in their favour.
Mekon
Singanas@Texasgulfcoast
The only predictive date of victory without the U.S. that I know of is
1950.
The prediction is based on combined British Empire and Soviet Union
resources.
This prediction does not include, AFAIK, the combined impacts of the
drought of
1946 and the record cold winter of 1946-47. These would have crippled
the
Axis more than the Allies.
I believe that Europe (less Scandinavia) would have gone Communist, had
the
U.S. not implemented the Marshall Plan under President Truman. Europe
was
on the brink of famine when the winter of 1946-47 struck. Britain and
Denmark had already voted for socialist governments.
Cheers, David H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eric Stevens
>
>Vince wrote:
>
>
>> 63,000 pounds
>>
>> Surely you jest
>> Specifications (Lancaster Mk I):
>> Engines: Four 1,460 hp Rolls-Royce Merlin XX inline piston engines.
>> Weight: Empty 36,900 lbs, Maximum Takeoff 68,000 lbs.
>>
>Yup. You're correct.
>The weights I should have used for the Lanc bomb load were Maximum:
>22,000 lb
>and usually 14,000 lb
>In the 8th Air Force, the normal tactical bomb load of the B-24 was
>5,000 lb
>and the average B-17 bomb load was between 4,000 lb and 5,000 lb..
And then there was the Mosquito of which "It was said that the 2 man
twin engined Mosquito could carry the same bomb load to Berlin as the
4 engined Flying Fortress with its crew of 11. It also did it quicker
and used less fuel" See http://www.flexi.net.au/~bfillery/mossie01.htm
The main reason I'm posting this is that there is now at least one
Mosquito being rebuilt in Auckland. See
http://www.warbirdrestoration.co.nz/current.html#ka114
All new woodwork to the original design.
>After 1944 the B29 arrived and had a bombload of 20,000 lb ....
>Great range great altitude but still carrying the same load as a Lanc
Eric Stevens
Vince
>
> And then there was the Mosquito of which "It was said that the 2 man
> twin engined Mosquito could carry the same bomb load to Berlin as the
> 4 engined Flying Fortress with its crew of 11. It also did it quicker
> and used less fuel" See http://www.flexi.net.au/~bfillery/mossie01.htm
>
At night however when it could not hit anything
> The main reason I'm posting this is that there is now at least one
> Mosquito being rebuilt in Auckland. See
> http://www.warbirdrestoration.co.nz/current.html#ka114
> All new woodwork to the original design.
>
>> After 1944 the B29 arrived and had a bombload of 20,000 lb ....
>> Great range great altitude but still carrying the same load as a Lanc
much greater "payload"
Vince
Mekon
"Vince" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
news:vdqdnUAnprikJfbY...@comcast.com...
> Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> >
> > And then there was the Mosquito of which "It was said that the 2 man
> > twin engined Mosquito could carry the same bomb load to Berlin as the
> > 4 engined Flying Fortress with its crew of 11. It also did it quicker
> > and used less fuel" See http://www.flexi.net.au/~bfillery/mossie01.htm
> >
>
> At night however when it could not hit anything
>
Bullshit.
The Mosquito was a versatile day and night bomber
It's most famous daylight success was Operation Jericho.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Operation_Jericho_-_Amiens_Jail_Breached.jpg
The photograph itself was taken by a Mosquito in daylight.
There were many others.
And the very fact that it could hit things at night was the reason it was
employed in the famous Pathfinder Squadron.
Mekon
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:jbdnm2hcspig3tm93...@4ax.com...
> And then there was the Mosquito of which "It was said that the 2 man
> twin engined Mosquito could carry the same bomb load to Berlin as the
> 4 engined Flying Fortress with its crew of 11. It also did it quicker
> and used less fuel" See http://www.flexi.net.au/~bfillery/mossie01.htm
Nice idea unfortunately it is not strictly correct. The faster part is
correct but not the bomb loads.
The later bomber version Mosquitoes could carry a 4,000 pound
bomb load to Berlin. The earlier version could carry 2,000 pounds.
The above claim seems to be based on the ideas behind the light
night striking force, which put forward the Mosquito was a more
economic bomber in terms of manpower, money and losses per
ton of bombs in Berlin.
The list below is the main allied raids from August 1943 onwards,
it does not include the Mosquito only raids. Note the average
bomb load of the US strikes.
Average bomb loads RAF aircraft attacking Berlin, basically
the tonnage of bombs credited as dropping on the target
divided by the aircraft credited with bombing the target,
Richard Davis figures. Mosquitoes not included as they
were pathfinders, note the raids where there were a handful
of Halifaxes would usually mean the Halifaxes were pathfinders,
not bombers and would not be included in the credited with
bombing figure.
23 August 1943, 124 Stirlings, 251 Halifaxes and 335 Lancasters,
despatched, 625 bombers credited as bombing, average bomb
load 6,350 pounds.
31 August 1943, 106 Stirlings, 176 Halifaxes and 331 Lancasters,
despatched, 512 bombers credited as bombing, average bomb
load 6,330 pounds.
3 September 1943, 316 Lancasters despatched, 295 credited
as bombing, average bomb load 7,590 pounds.
18 November 1943, 440 Lancasters despatched, 402 credited
as bombing, average bomb load 8,880 pounds.
22 November 1943, 50 Stirlings, 234 Halifaxes and 469 Lancasters,
despatched, 670 bombers credited as bombing, average bomb
load 8,240 pounds.
23 November 1943, 10 Halifaxes, 365 Lancasters despatched, 322
bombers credited as bombing, average bomb load 9,240 pounds.
26 November 1943, 443 Lancasters despatched, 402 credited
as bombing, average bomb load 8,670 pounds.
2 December 1943, 15 Halifaxes, 425 Lancasters despatched, 401
bombers credited as bombing, average bomb load 9,415 pounds.
16 December 1943, 483 Lancasters despatched, 450 credited
as bombing, average bomb load 9,035 pounds.
23 December 1943, 7 Halifaxes, 364 Lancasters despatched, 338
bombers credited as bombing, average bomb load 8,535 pounds.
29 December 1943, 252 Halifaxes, 457 Lancasters despatched, 656
bombers credited as bombing, average bomb load 7,903 pounds.
1 January 1944, 421 Lancasters despatched, 386 credited
as bombing, average bomb load 8,125 pounds.
2 January 1944, 9 Halifaxes, 362 Lancasters despatched, 311
bombers credited as bombing, average bomb load 8,040 pounds.
20 January 1944, 264 Halifaxes, 495 Lancasters despatched, 679
bombers credited as bombing, average bomb load 7,920 pounds.
27 January 1944, 515 Lancasters despatched, 481 credited
as bombing, average bomb load 8,200 pounds.
28 January 1944, 241 Halifaxes, 432 Lancasters despatched, 596
bombers credited as bombing, average bomb load 7,345 pounds.
30 January 1944, 82 Halifaxes, 440 Lancasters despatched, 489
bombers credited as bombing, average bomb load 8,980 pounds.
15 February 1944, 314 Halifaxes, 561 Lancasters despatched, 806
bombers credited as bombing, average bomb load 7,345 pounds.
24 March 1944, 216 Halifaxes, 577 Lancasters despatched, 726
bombers credited as bombing, average bomb load 7,690 pounds.
For US bombers the average bomb loads to Berlin, using the
same methods as above are as follows, note that many to most
of these raids had bombers attacking targets other than "Berlin",
the usual targets of opportunity or different aiming points, which
explains some of the differences between despatched and
attacking figures.
Berlin on 9 March 1944, 361 B-17s despatched, 332 credited
with attacking, average bomb load 4,630 pounds.
Berlin on 22 March 1994, 474 B-17s and 214 B-24s despatched
621 bombers credited with attacking Berlin, average bomb load
4,425 pounds (around 80 bombers attacked other targets, including
32 the Berlin/Basdorf industrial area)
Berlin on 29 April 1944, 446 B-17s and 233 B-24s despatched,
581 bombers credited with attacking Berlin, average bomb load
4,900 pounds.
Berlin on 7 May 1944, 600 B-17s despatched, 525 credited
with attacking Berlin, average bomb load 4,810 pounds. The
B-24s sent to Osnabruck average bomb load 5,435 pounds.
Berlin on 8 May 1944, 500 B-17s despatched, 384 credited
with attacking Berlin, average bomb load 4,765 pounds. The
B-24s sent to Brunswick average bomb load 4,790 pounds.
Berlin on 19 May 1944, 588 B-17s despatched, 493 credited
with attacking Berlin, average bomb load 4,325 pounds. The
B-24s sent to Brunswick average bomb load 5,710 pounds,
or around 1,000 pounds more than 11 days earlier.
Berlin on 24 May 1944, 616 B-17s despatched, 459 credited
with attacking Berlin, average bomb load 4,500 pounds.
Berlin on 21 June 1944, 866 B-17s and 366 B-24s despatched,
to many targets, 560 bombers credited with attacking Berlin,
average bomb load 4,900 pounds.
Berlin on 3 February 1945, 1,093 B-17s despatched, 934 credited
with attacking Berlin, average bomb load 4,890 pounds (interestingly
the 215 bombers who used H2X to sight their bombs had an average
load of around 70 pounds more, which is a warning to treat the figures
as a guide, not absolute).
Berlin on 26 February 1945, 840 B-17s and 367 B-24s despatched,
to many targets around Berlin, 1,089 bombers credited with attacking
3 targets in Berlin, average bomb load 5,100 pounds. Interestingly
the Alexander Platz rail station strike, all B-17, had the highest average
of 5,810 pounds, the North rail station strike, all B-24, the lowest at
4,480 pounds. Strike assignments from Freeman, Mighty 8th War Diary.
If this is correct presumably this was done to allow the B-24s to fly that
little bit higher. This hints at the possibility that, on average, the B-24
carried fewer bombs to Berlin than the B-17 in 1945 anyway.
Berlin on 18 March 1945, 982 B-17s and 347 B-24s despatched,
1,219 bombers credited with attacking. The raid list has 7 entries,
for the targets attacked, by between 25 and 498 bombers,
bomb load averages from 3,860 to 5,170 pounds, overall average
bomb load 5,052 pounds.
Berlin on 28 March 1945, 446 B-17s despatched, 403 credited
with attacking, average bomb load 5,155 pounds. By March 1945
many groups were flying with 9 crew, leaving one gunner behind
and there was widespread removal of some gun turrets as well.
The advantages of air superiority.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Julian Richards
<gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:jbdnm2hcspig3tm93...@4ax.com...
>
>> And then there was the Mosquito of which "It was said that the 2 man
>> twin engined Mosquito could carry the same bomb load to Berlin as the
>> 4 engined Flying Fortress with its crew of 11. It also did it quicker
>> and used less fuel" See http://www.flexi.net.au/~bfillery/mossie01.htm
>
>Nice idea unfortunately it is not strictly correct. The faster part is
>correct but not the bomb loads.
>
>The later bomber version Mosquitoes could carry a 4,000 pound
>bomb load to Berlin. The earlier version could carry 2,000 pounds.
>
>The above claim seems to be based on the ideas behind the light
>night striking force, which put forward the Mosquito was a more
>economic bomber in terms of manpower, money and losses per
>ton of bombs in Berlin.
A better comparison might be for two Mossies against one Lancaster. 4
crew and four Merlins. I'm not sure about bomb loads but losses would
be a decisive factor.
Vince
Apples and oranges. in both cases.
I am not a fan of the daylight bombing campaign
But it took hundreds of planes to carry enough bombs to make any
difference. Jericho was a low level attack with 10% casualties on a
relatively undefended target not far from England. Only 18 planes were
involved.
Pathfinder missions did not involve "hitting " anything. They required
riding an oboe Beam and "marking" a city sized target
Then the Lancaster dump truck would bomb on the markers.
It was a brilliant design , and it does not need silly claims made for it.
Vince
Peter Skelton
<gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:jbdnm2hcspig3tm93...@4ax.com...
>
>> And then there was the Mosquito of which "It was said that the 2 man
>> twin engined Mosquito could carry the same bomb load to Berlin as the
>> 4 engined Flying Fortress with its crew of 11. It also did it quicker
>> and used less fuel" See http://www.flexi.net.au/~bfillery/mossie01.htm
>
>Nice idea unfortunately it is not strictly correct. The faster part is
>correct but not the bomb loads.
>
>The later bomber version Mosquitoes could carry a 4,000 pound
>bomb load to Berlin. The earlier version could carry 2,000 pounds.
>
>The above claim seems to be based on the ideas behind the light
>night striking force, which put forward the Mosquito was a more
>economic bomber in terms of manpower, money and losses per
>ton of bombs in Berlin.
>
ISTR that the idea came from a comparison of the expected (4,000
lb) bomb load vs the B17 in (or nearing) RAF trial. That was the
B-17c which had a nominal capacity of 5,000 lb, but couldn't
carry that much to Berlin.
Later versions of the fortress carried much more, wasn't the
first large purchase the F anf the main war version the G?
I didn't look it up, being not near the books, MMV.
<long snip of good data>
Peter Skelton
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
fir...@firelaw.us (Vince) wrote:
> At night however when it could not hit anything
Vince, look up Oboe and Gee, Mosquitos were used for pathfinding
and target marking.
Ken Young
Ray O'Hara
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pOadnUH1qo3...@pipex.net...
all that allowed was dropping bombs within city limits and plenty of bombs
still hit surrounding towns.
they still needed pathfinders and markers to keep marking the target.
Mekon
(snip)
> >> At night however when it could not hit anything
> >>
(snip)
> It was a brilliant design , and it does not need silly claims made for it.
>
> Vince
>
And *that* wasn't a silly claim?
Mekon
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
skel...@cogeco.ca (Peter Skelton) wrote:
> I didn't look it up, being not near the books, MMV.
I posted this earlier but only to alt.history.british.
Twenty B17C were supplied to the RAF (Fortress I), after losses
the remainder were diverted to Coastal Command or the Middle
East. The RAF got 45 B17E in 1942(Fortress IA), Coastal Command
got 19 B17F (Fortress II) and the RAF 85 B17G (Fortress III).
The B17G was the major production model with 8,680 being
completed. Loaded weight of a B17G was 55,000lbs, loaded weight
of a Lancaster Mk I was 68,000lbs.
Ken Young
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:p1vnm2lo46f9fqsa9...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:10:23 +1100, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
> <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:
>
>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>>news:jbdnm2hcspig3tm93...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> And then there was the Mosquito of which "It was said that the 2 man
>>> twin engined Mosquito could carry the same bomb load to Berlin as the
>>> 4 engined Flying Fortress with its crew of 11. It also did it quicker
>>> and used less fuel" See http://www.flexi.net.au/~bfillery/mossie01.htm
>>
>>Nice idea unfortunately it is not strictly correct. The faster part is
>>correct but not the bomb loads.
>>
>>The later bomber version Mosquitoes could carry a 4,000 pound
>>bomb load to Berlin. The earlier version could carry 2,000 pounds.
>>
>>The above claim seems to be based on the ideas behind the light
>>night striking force, which put forward the Mosquito was a more
>>economic bomber in terms of manpower, money and losses per
>>ton of bombs in Berlin.
>
> A better comparison might be for two Mossies against one Lancaster. 4
> crew and four Merlins. I'm not sure about bomb loads but losses would
> be a decisive factor.
I will use the averages for the start, since the attack on Germany was
more than bombing Berlin.
The British Bombing Survey Unit did a calculation of the cost of
each British bomber, man months of effort per 1,000 pounds of bombs
dropped, counting aircraft production, maintenance and crew training
costs The Lancaster comes out at 9.25 man months per 1,000 pounds
of bombs, the 2,000 pound bomb load Mosquitoes come out at 16 man
months per 1,000 pounds of bombs. So the Mosquitoes carrying 4,000
pounds of bombs should come out better than the Lancaster but not
dramatically so.
The BBSU also says the average bomb Lancaster bomb load for the
war was 9,186 pounds.
The Lancaster is credited with 608,612 long tons and 148,403 bombing
sorties despatched, which when you divided the tonnage by the sorties
comes to 9,186.4 pounds, a nice match to the BBSU figure.
If you use the 135,445 Lancaster bomber sorties credited with
attacking the target the average Lancaster bomb load for the
war was 10,065 pounds.
The BBSU figure for the average bomb load of the Mosquito is
2,107 pounds and would go up by a similar percentage to the
increase in Lancaster bomb load if you only count sorties credited
with attacking.
The main Mosquito version carrying a 4,000 pound bomb was the
mark XVI and they did not necessarily always carry a 4,000 pound
bomb load to Berlin, the last RAF attack on Berlin was by a
Mosquito XVI and it dropped four 500 pound bombs.
Something like 6 Mosquito XVIs were built in 1943, 101 January to
June 1944, 98 July to December 1944 and 125 January to April 1945.
Bomber Command reported over the course of the war 2.2% of
Lancaster sorties were lost and another 0.16% of sorties resulted
in the accidental loss of a Lancaster, total loss rate of 2.36%.
The figures for Mosquitoes are 0.65% and 0.13%, total 0.78%,
or around a third the Lancaster loss rate, for around a quarter the
average bomb load.
Now these are the averages, which are fine for the Lancaster,
given its performance did not change much and was usually only
used in daylight when it could be escorted. The Mosquito was
first used for unescorted day raids and the mark XVI had a significant
performance edge over the early mark IV bomber.
On the other hand intercepting a raid of several hundred Lancasters
was easier than several tens of Mosquitoes simply due to the numbers
involved before we talk speed and altitude.
Using the Bomber Command Losses series some 142 Mosquito
XVIs were lost to all causes, 108 on operations by bomber
squadrons, compared with 142 Mosquito mark IV losses, 124 on
operations by bomber squadrons. The Canadian mark XX and XXV
were basically the Mosquito IV, and Bomber Command lost some
71 of these two types on operations.
According to the table in Mosquito by Sharp and Bowyer non
Oboe equipped Mosquitoes flew 3,695 sorties to Berlin in 1945,
dropping 1,459 4,000 pound bombs. All up the book reports
on 7,709 bomber sorties in 1945 to various targets in Germany
dropping 3,031 4,000 pound bombs, or 39% of sorties dropping
a 4,000 pound bomb, with 26 aircraft failing to return, or a 0.34%
loss rate.
The overall RAF night bomber loss rate in 1945 was 1.4%, or
4 times the Mosquito rate. The day sortie loss rate was 0.5%.
So while it is clear the 4,000 pound bomb carrying Mosquitoes
were more efficient than the Lancaster even before loss rates
are factored in, the 2,000 pound Mosquitoes are the other way
around.
In case you were wondering the losses series indicates some 1,081
Bomber Command Aircraft were lost to all causes, including
accidents, when the target was Berlin. Second in this list is Essen
with 468 losses, Hamburg is third with 437 losses.
Eric Stevens
Let's tidy up my original 'silly claim'.
http://freespace.virgin.net/pbratt.home/De%20Haviland%20Mosquito%20BIV.htm
"Within Bomber Command Mosquito's served as a pathfinder, and as the
Light Night Striking Force taking over from the heavy bombers
attacking Berlin night after night virtually without loss, each
Mosquito delivering a heavier bomb load than the American B17 heavy
bomber, (for distant targets such as Berlin the B17's bomb load was
less than 4000lb's). So fast and efficient was the Mosquito it was
possible to bomb Berlin early in the evening, return, refuel,
recrew and attack Berlin twice in the same night effectively
doubling the size of the LNSF."
Then, re your 'silly claim' about the ability of the Mosquito to bomb
accurately at night:
http://www.2worldwar2.com/mosquito-2.htm
"One of the methods to increase the accuracy of the heavy bombers
was the Pathfinder Force, an idea copied from a German tactic used
in the bombardment of British cities earlier in World War 2. The
Pathfinder Mosquitoes flew ahead of the main bomber formations and
marked the targets by bombing them with incendiary bombs. The
greater accuracy of the Pathfinders was achieved either by flying
at very high altitude or at low altitude.
If navigation relied on navigation beams transmitted from Britain,
their range was limited by the horizon, and since the higher the
bomber flew the further was its horizon, and since the Mosquito
could reach much higher altitude than a heavy bomber, the use of
Mosquito Pathfinders significantly extended the limited
operational radius of this navigation method.
For further targets, Mosquito crews, mostly with experienced
navigators, flew to the targets at low altitudes and visually
identified them and marked them with incendiary bombs. This was
much safer to do with a fast Mosquito than with a heavy bomber.
Another method involved placing a senior navigator, nicknamed the
master bomber, in a Mosquito which loitered at high speed over the
target area to visually observe the bombardment and guide the
following waves of bombers with aiming corrections. Doing this
with an aircraft other than Mosquito would have been suicidal.
In fact the whole article is worth reading. One of the points it makes
is that, on the numbers, the entire allied heavy bomber force could
have been beneficially replaced with high-speed light bombers such as
the Mosquito. So - a pox on your Lancasters, B17s and B24s! :-)
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:
Oops! The RAF, and particularly the Lancaster, bombed principally at
night. They did this because in the early stage of the war they could
not be escorted.
One factor you haven't mentioned is the respective accuracy of the
bombing. The accuracy of the RAF heavy bombers at night was apalling,
until they were able to make use of the Mosquitos (and Oboe) to get
them on the target.
http://www.2worldwar2.com/mosquito-2.htm
"Only a third of the bombers bombed within a radius of five miles
from the target. Low clouds, fog, and industrial smoke even
reduced this ratio to just one of ten bombers, and only about 1%
of the bombs actually hit the large designated target. In other
words, despite the allocation of great resources to build many
heavy bombers and train their crews, and the efforts and heavy
casualties of bomber crews, they simply missed their targets and
wasted their efforts."
The ability of Mosquitos to operate even in daylight meant that they
generally did much better than this.
Eric Stevens
Geoffrey Sinclair
> One factor you haven't mentioned is the respective accuracy of the
> bombing. The accuracy of the RAF heavy bombers at night was apalling,
> until they were able to make use of the Mosquitos (and Oboe) to get
> them on the target.
The straight answer to this is wrong.
Oboe and Mosquitoes were part of the solution, see for example GH.
See also the heavy bomber day raids in 1944/45, taking advantage
of fighter escorts.
> http://www.2worldwar2.com/mosquito-2.htm
>
> "Only a third of the bombers bombed within a radius of five miles
> from the target. Low clouds, fog, and industrial smoke even
> reduced this ratio to just one of ten bombers, and only about 1%
> of the bombs actually hit the large designated target. In other
> words, despite the allocation of great resources to build many
> heavy bombers and train their crews, and the efforts and heavy
> casualties of bomber crews, they simply missed their targets and
> wasted their efforts."
This is a quote from the Butt report for night raids in mid 1941. It does
not take into account the improvements during the war.
According to Arthur Harris in 1942 around 20 to 30% of bombs hit
within 3 miles of the aiming point, where photographs could be
plotted, it improved during the war and went up beyond 90% in mid
1944 and stayed there. This is for night raids on targets in Germany
except Berlin, in "good to moderate" weather.
> The ability of Mosquitos to operate even in daylight meant that they
> generally did much better than this.
Bomber Command ran Mosquito day operations 31 May 1942 to 27
May 1943, 726 sorties, 582 effective (477 against primary target), 48
aircraft failed to return, or 6.6% of sorties sent or 8.2% of effective
sorties. These were often long range low level operations with
attendant risks. This was not a sustainable loss rate.
Harris has a graph of bomber losses when attacking Germany, the
figures exclude Mosquitoes, the Battle of Berlin peak is 6.4%, the
absolute peak is for the few raids in June and early July 1944, at
7.6%.
Bomber Command switched to using Mosquitoes at night in mid
1943. Meantime the RAF used Mosquito fighter bombers for day
and night "tactical" operations. Mostly at night in 1944/45. See
2 Group RAF by Bowyer.
In the second half of 1944 and in 1945 Bomber Command resumed
day operations, 43,819 night and 28,992 day sorties 16/17 August
to 31 December 1944/1 January 1945 and 44,289 night and 18,545
day sorties during 1945.
If you are thinking about raids like Amiens prison on 18 February
1944, 18 Mosquitoes were tasked, 16 made the target area, the
bombing was very accurate and 2 Mosquitoes were shot down.
These were Mosquito VI fighter bombers, carrying 2,000 pounds
of bombs, or 1,000 pounds if they needed the wing stations for
fuel tanks, which they would have for most targets in Germany
since the sea level range was 780 miles with no external loads and
1,325 miles with drop tanks.
The Mosquito was a very good aircraft, but not as good as the web
sites being quoted indicate.
Geoffrey Sinclair
> Let's tidy up my original 'silly claim'.
>
> http://freespace.virgin.net/pbratt.home/De%20Haviland%20Mosquito%20BIV.htm
>
> "Within Bomber Command Mosquito's served as a pathfinder, and as the
> Light Night Striking Force taking over from the heavy bombers
> attacking Berlin night after night virtually without loss, each
> Mosquito delivering a heavier bomb load than the American B17 heavy
> bomber, (for distant targets such as Berlin the B17's bomb load was
> less than 4000lb's). So fast and efficient was the Mosquito it was
> possible to bomb Berlin early in the evening, return, refuel,
> recrew and attack Berlin twice in the same night effectively
> doubling the size of the LNSF."
Simply put, based on the reports of the US 8th Air Force the claim
the B-17 took less than 4,000 pounds of bombs to Berlin is wrong.
I have access to a database of all US heavy bomber raids in Europe
in WWII, including the number of aircraft attacking, what exactly
they attacked and bomb tonnages.
The above claim about the B-17 is wrong.
Oh yes, the dual Mosquito sorties did occur, in mid winter when
the nights were long enough. It also helped that there was no need
to wait to create formations or to conform to a time window when the
pathfinders were marking the target.
The trouble is the master bomber idea included people in Lancasters
and the master bomber was the pilot, not the navigator. The idea
had its place but was not a regular feature of operations, mass
attacks could not use the technique.
You need to double check what the pathfinder squadrons did, as
opposed to what 617 squadron did.
Also the Mosquito pathfinders tended to fly at the usual altitudes,
rather than low level and marking was not done at low level for
well defended targets, Leonard Cheshire being an exception.
When the RAF started using Oboe Mosquitoes by themselves the
Germans worked out the flight paths for targets that were often
attacked and set a barrage based on those flight paths. Worked
reasonably well in pushing up the loss rates.
The tables in Sharp and Bowyer indicate Non Oboe Mosquitoes
flew 3,900 sorties to Berlin in 1945. This compares with 88 Oboe
Mosquito sorties, all of which happened in April 1945, with 71
credited with attacking.
Non Oboe Mosquitoes flew another 2,945 sorties to other German
targets versus 864 Oboe Mosquito sorties to similar targets.
So what exactly is the guarantee of superior accuracy for these
no Oboe sorties? It cannot be low level, the 4,000 pound carrying
versions went high taking advantage of their pressure cabins.
> In fact the whole article is worth reading. One of the points it makes
> is that, on the numbers, the entire allied heavy bomber force could
> have been beneficially replaced with high-speed light bombers such as
> the Mosquito. So - a pox on your Lancasters, B17s and B24s! :-)
The straight answer to this is if the Mosquito could have replaced
the B-17/24/Lancaster etc then the P-51 could have replaced the
Mosquito, it was faster and more survivable, though carrying a
smaller bomb load.
Simply put each type had its niche, hence the mixture of types
used during the war.
Eric Stevens
<gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:dcnsm2p162p4nahrp...@4ax.com...
>> Let's tidy up my original 'silly claim'.
>>
>> http://freespace.virgin.net/pbratt.home/De%20Haviland%20Mosquito%20BIV.htm
>>
>> "Within Bomber Command Mosquito's served as a pathfinder, and as the
>> Light Night Striking Force taking over from the heavy bombers
>> attacking Berlin night after night virtually without loss, each
>> Mosquito delivering a heavier bomb load than the American B17 heavy
>> bomber, (for distant targets such as Berlin the B17's bomb load was
>> less than 4000lb's). So fast and efficient was the Mosquito it was
>> possible to bomb Berlin early in the evening, return, refuel,
>> recrew and attack Berlin twice in the same night effectively
>> doubling the size of the LNSF."
>
>Simply put, based on the reports of the US 8th Air Force the claim
>the B-17 took less than 4,000 pounds of bombs to Berlin is wrong.
>
>I have access to a database of all US heavy bomber raids in Europe
>in WWII, including the number of aircraft attacking, what exactly
>they attacked and bomb tonnages.
>
>The above claim about the B-17 is wrong.
OK. What is the right answer - for Berlin?
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
90% within three miles? Are you really saying that this was an
effective weapon?
>
>> The ability of Mosquitos to operate even in daylight meant that they
>> generally did much better than this.
>
>Bomber Command ran Mosquito day operations 31 May 1942 to 27
>May 1943, 726 sorties, 582 effective (477 against primary target), 48
>aircraft failed to return, or 6.6% of sorties sent or 8.2% of effective
>sorties. These were often long range low level operations with
>attendant risks. This was not a sustainable loss rate.
But these were special operations. Milch was terrified (?) the
Mosquito was going to be turned loose on Berlin. But it never was.
>
>Harris has a graph of bomber losses when attacking Germany, the
>figures exclude Mosquitoes, the Battle of Berlin peak is 6.4%, the
>absolute peak is for the few raids in June and early July 1944, at
>7.6%.
About the same as the Mosquitos.
>
>Bomber Command switched to using Mosquitoes at night in mid
>1943. Meantime the RAF used Mosquito fighter bombers for day
>and night "tactical" operations. Mostly at night in 1944/45. See
>2 Group RAF by Bowyer.
>
>In the second half of 1944 and in 1945 Bomber Command resumed
>day operations, 43,819 night and 28,992 day sorties 16/17 August
>to 31 December 1944/1 January 1945 and 44,289 night and 18,545
>day sorties during 1945.
>
>If you are thinking about raids like Amiens prison on 18 February
>1944, 18 Mosquitoes were tasked, 16 made the target area, the
>bombing was very accurate and 2 Mosquitoes were shot down.
>These were Mosquito VI fighter bombers, carrying 2,000 pounds
>of bombs, or 1,000 pounds if they needed the wing stations for
>fuel tanks, which they would have for most targets in Germany
>since the sea level range was 780 miles with no external loads and
>1,325 miles with drop tanks.
>
>The Mosquito was a very good aircraft, but not as good as the web
>sites being quoted indicate.
>
>Geoffrey Sinclair
>Remove the nb for email.
>
Eric Stevens
Fred J. McCall
:On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:14:03 +1100, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
Note that the 'aiming point' was 'the city', so this is actually even
worse than it sounds.
Freeman Dyson, who worked as an analyst at Bomber Command, came to the
conclusion that the cost of running Bomber Command was higher than the
costs it inflicted on the enemy.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Alistair Gunn
> In fact the whole article is worth reading. One of the points it makes
> is that, on the numbers, the entire allied heavy bomber force could
> have been beneficially replaced with high-speed light bombers such as
> the Mosquito. So - a pox on your Lancasters, B17s and B24s! :-)
There's no way you're ever going to manage to get a Mosquito with a
Tallboy (let along a Grand Slam!) into the air. So you'd still be
wanting some Lancaster for the "heavy stuff". (Of course, you'd still
want something big and 4-engined for Coastal Command ... However based
on the opinions of the time, I think if they'd decided to largely scrap
the 4-engined bomber programmes and build Mosquitos instead then we'd got
Stirlings? (Which ain't much use for Tallboy/Grand Slam missions either!
Also, what are the odds on successfully completing a dams raid using
Mosquito+Highball rather than Lancaster+Upkeep? IIRC, the Mosquito could
carry a pair of Highballs but the lower explosive charge is going to mean
you'll probably need them I guess? Worst case scenario is that you'd
need more Mosquitos than the number of Lancasters that 617 used in OTL.
The more runs you have to do means more risk for the aircrews, and the
bomber version of the Mosquito doesn't have any way to suppress the flak
crews.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...