PDA

View Full Version : Last nights 'Greatest Ever Machines... Bombers



Secudus2004
09-27-2005, 01:28 PM
Who agree's with last nights Channel fives TV show, 'Greatest Ever Machines' with the focus on Bombers...

Bronze: Lancaster

Silver: B-17

Gold: B-52

Secudus2004
09-27-2005, 01:28 PM
Who agree's with last nights Channel fives TV show, 'Greatest Ever Machines' with the focus on Bombers...

Bronze: Lancaster

Silver: B-17

Gold: B-52

Low_Flyer_MkII
09-27-2005, 01:43 PM
Wot? No B-29?

Secudus2004
09-27-2005, 01:52 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Nope, not even a mench... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

LeadSpitter_
09-27-2005, 02:13 PM
they are the machines who won the wars stopping fuel and factory production and worst of all those producing soldiers the civilians, it was also the most dangerous aviation job there was.

jamesaq1989
09-27-2005, 02:22 PM
I would have thought the Lancaster rated higher than the B-17. The Lancasters went on the Dam Buster raid after all.I dont really remember the B-17 douing something so memorable.Yes it did its share , but I would still say the Lanc was better.

Skipper

BaldieJr
09-27-2005, 02:48 PM
Countdown to mossie mention...

Arm_slinger
09-27-2005, 02:53 PM
What a load of ****. All of those bombers were good at what they were designed for, i.e the Lanc for night time ops, the B-17 for daylight. Switch the aircraft around in those rolls and they'd do very poorly. These sort of comparisons are useless.

BaldieJr
09-27-2005, 03:00 PM
Seriously. The drill press is a greater-ever-machine if you ask me. What a load of dogs bollocks or whatever.

Secudus2004
09-27-2005, 03:01 PM
To quote the narrator..."The lanc comes in at number 3 because of it's fatal design flaw...' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Does anyone know what it was? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Low_Flyer_MkII
09-27-2005, 03:01 PM
OI! BALDIE!

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/mossie111.jpg


And what design flaw was that? pray tell. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

madsarmy
09-27-2005, 03:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jamesaq1989:
I dont really remember the B-17 douing something so memorable.Yes it did its share , but I would still say the Lanc was better.

Skipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are Joking? right!

Secudus2004
09-27-2005, 03:04 PM
Nope, another not given a mench...

madsarmy
09-27-2005, 03:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Secudus2004:
To quote the narrator..."The lanc comes in at number 3 because of it's fatal design flaw...' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Does anyone know what it was? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No belly gun

pacettid
09-27-2005, 03:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jamesaq1989:
I would have thought the Lancaster rated higher than the B-17. The Lancasters went on the Dam Buster raid after all.I dont really remember the B-17 douing something so memorable. Yes it did its share , but I would still say the Lanc was better.

Skipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guess it depends on your definition of memorable:

- 12,000 B17€s were built in the war and nearly 250,000 Americans experienced flying in them; 46,500 were either killed or wounded.

- Out of the 1.5 million tons of bombs dropped on Germany, the B17 dropped 500,000 tons.

- 922 B17€s were lost in WWII during the raids on the oil refineries alone, with the loss of nearly 10,000 men killed, wounded or captured.


Memorable in my book!

Low_Flyer_MkII
09-27-2005, 03:10 PM
Do you want to read RAF Bomber Command casualty stats again? I've got them to hand http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

In no way wishing to belittle American sacrifice.

Secudus2004
09-27-2005, 03:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by madsarmy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jamesaq1989:
I dont really remember the B-17 douing something so memorable.Yes it did its share , but I would still say the Lanc was better.

Skipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are Joking? right! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think jamesaq1989 is denigrating the B-17€s War record, only that it did not have as much specific ordinance as the Lancaster was given e.g., bouncing bomb, Grand slam etc€¦

Secudus2004
09-27-2005, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by madsarmy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Secudus2004:
To quote the narrator..."The lanc comes in at number 3 because of it's fatal design flaw...' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Does anyone know what it was? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No belly gun </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct...Give that man a chocolate Banana http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But what they failed to mention was having a belly gun and the necessary ammunition and gunner, would mean less room for the Bomb payload... Which would equate to less bombs dropped on Germany and fewer casualties http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cause lets face it, compared to the Lanc, the B-17 was a feather weight Bomber that could'ent pull the skin off a rice pudding...

pacettid
09-27-2005, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
Do you want to read RAF Bomber Command casualty stats again? I've got them to hand http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

In no way wishing to belittle American sacrifice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't need to read them again to appreciate the sacrifice.

No offense taken. Britain and the United States formed one of the greatest alliances in the history of the world to defeat Nazi Germany.

When it comes to the strategic bombing campaign, the one-two punch delivered by Bomber Command and the 8th AF is what got it done...so in my opinion picking "the greatest" is academic and mourning the loss of over 100,000 Commonwealth and American aircrew personnel is what I consider memorable.

Low_Flyer_MkII
09-27-2005, 03:41 PM
I'll drink to that, Pacettid ~S!~

Aaron_GT
09-27-2005, 03:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No belly gun </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was designed to carry one (ditto Stirling, Halifax, even Wellington). In fact some Lancasters did indeed carry an official belly gun mount (there were various versions of belly mount, most typically mounting a single 50 calibre gun).

When nightbombing it was felt officially that the weight of the gun and crewmember wasn't worth it as it was basically impossible to see a dark nightfighter against a dark landscape. Unofficially some crews rigged a belly gun even on those which lacked the mounting. Some Australians went as far as mounting a single 20mm cannon on a flexible mount.

Ultimately, though, H2S was placed where the belly gun mount had previously been and escort was given to the bomber streams via Mosquito night fighters.

Arm_slinger
09-27-2005, 04:08 PM
I think the design fault with the Lancaster, was the main spa passing through the fuselarge.This made it very hard to get out of a lanc, alot of crewman never escaped a doomed lanc for this reason alone.

Low_Flyer_MkII
09-27-2005, 04:11 PM
.303 instead of .50 Brownings?

Arm_slinger
09-27-2005, 04:15 PM
That as well

I'm sure that either Candian crews, or canadian built lancs had .50's in them, especially in the rear turret.

I'd love to see the results if the RAF bombers were equiped with 20mm's in the turrets.

Secudus2004
09-27-2005, 04:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Arm_slinger:
I think the design fault with the Lancaster, was the main spa passing through the fuselarge.This made it very hard to get out of a lanc, alot of crewman never escaped a doomed lanc for this reason alone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm... Getting out of a broken and burning Bomber was difficult for nearly every if not all bombers, 9 times out of 10 only about half the crew escaped death...

Arm_slinger
09-27-2005, 04:27 PM
Very ture, but the Lanc, in my mind has always had the the grim fame for it.

Having said that, i've read some very harrowing tales of the Forts and liberators going down.

One that clings to my memory was the tale of a B-17 pilot he stayed with his Ball gunner, who was just a kid, while the rest of the crew jumped. It was reported that he stayed with his young gunner for about a minute until the plane hit the ground.

harrowing

Secudus2004
09-27-2005, 04:35 PM
From what I've heard and read and been told, it was the worst of all the forces to be in... It was liked to going 'Over the top' in WWI every night/day you went on a mission... Think about it, every time you went on a mission it was the same as a soldier in the trenches of WWI going over the top to face...

LStarosta
09-27-2005, 05:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Seriously. The drill press is a greater-ever-machine if you ask me. What a load of dogs bollocks or whatever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately, due to Bob Barker, my dog no longer possesses bollocks.

Triggaaar
09-27-2005, 08:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Secudus2004:
From what I've heard and read and been told, it was the worst of all the forces to be in... It was liked to going 'Over the top' in WWI every night/day you went on a mission... Think about it, every time you went on a mission it was the same as a soldier in the trenches of WWI going over the top to face... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>A pretty tough assignment no doubt, but I'm not sure that each mission could be compared to going over the top, where a much larger percentage died. I'd guess being in a sub was pretty bad too.

Low_Flyer_MkII
09-28-2005, 05:00 AM
'Among every 100 RAF Bomber Command aircrew in the course of the war, 51 died on operations, 9 were lost in crashes in England, 3 seriously injured, 12 were taken prisoner, 1 was shot down and avoided capture, and just 24 completed a tour of operations.'

Armageddon - Max Hastings. Macmillan Publishing, 2004.

55,000 dead. Average age 22.

Many survivors of a tour of duty volunteered for a second, knowing those odds.

Aaron_GT
09-28-2005, 05:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'd love to see the results if the RAF bombers were equiped with 20mm's in the turrets. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Lincoln was (in the top turret anyway) but was too late to see service. I think that was a Boulton Paul twin 20mm turret. The rest of the guns were 50 calibre. No ventral gun, due to H2S.

Bristol (I think, from memory) designed both twin and quad 20mm turrets and mockups were tested on the Mosquito. A quad 20mm turret would be a fearsome thing.

Aaron_GT
09-28-2005, 05:21 AM
The advantage the B17 had in terms of crew survivability was the ability to jump out via the bomb bay (assuming the bombs had been dropped). The tail gunner had a job getting out as he had to crawl back from the tail, though.

At least in this respect the Lancaster tail gunner was lucky in that he had his own escape hatch. However being at the tail end of the plane with nightfighters approaching low and from behind meant that it probably didn't help much as often the tail gunner was the first to die.

Aaron_GT
09-28-2005, 05:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A pretty tough assignment no doubt, but I'm not sure that each mission could be compared to going over the top, where a much larger percentage died. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In terms of overall survival rates you were more likely to survive a given period of time in the frontline in infantry WW1 than the same time period in the frontline of Bomber Command. However in that given period of time in the infantry you were likely to take part in fewer attacks than bomber missions. So on a comparasion of going over the top to going on a night bombing mission, the latter was safer, but you did it more often.

jamesaq1989
09-28-2005, 09:51 AM
Sorry if my initial post caused confusion or offence.

At no point did I or did I mean to belittle the American part and sacrifice in bombing Germnay during WWII.I was merely stating that the Lanc seemed to be more adaptable and in my view performed better in attacking specific targets such as the dams.

Once again apologies if my post was misunderstood and caused offence.

Skipper

SlickStick
09-28-2005, 10:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Countdown to mossie mention... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's some mossie action for ya:

http://hsfeatures.com/images/mistletoetm_title.jpg

Read more here: British Mistletoe (http://hsfeatures.com/mistletoetm_1.htm)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

p1ngu666
09-28-2005, 12:52 PM
they fail to point out that its *very* hard to see the night fighter against the ground, or a bomber infact, unless over cloud, the fires below, search lights etc...

the night fighter doesnt just suddenly appear underneath the bomber in a teleport stylee, he hasto come from a direction and get under..

plus the front and rear turrets could be lowered to -45degrees

and gunners where mostly useless aswell

mossie should of been in there, cos of terms of hittin the target, operational emunity, economics it was the best http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

woofiedog
09-28-2005, 06:09 PM
This is Fire Power! Just the right amont of Ammo! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

http://www.lymanslack.com/AviationBackgroundBiography/imagelinks/b-52%20ramp.jpg

ploughman
09-29-2005, 01:04 AM
I may've alread posted this factotum. During the war Freeman Dyson worked for some office or other in the Ministry of Defence and he was asked the best way to improve the dreadful losses Bomber Command was sufferring. After much extended cogitation the great man replied that the RAF should remove all the defensive armament from the heavy bomber fleet as it was ineffective. Additionally, not only would the bomber's performance be increased allowing them to fly further, longer, higher, and with more (though not necessarily all at once) but when one was shot down not so many crew would be available to be lost. The Ministry thought that such an approach would be effect morale and that defensive armament and the gunners should be retained to 'reassure' the rest of the aircrew.

Or something like that, if I remember correctly.

ElektroFredrik
09-29-2005, 01:32 AM
Don't quote me on this but I seem to remember
hearing about a Bomber Command directive that
went along these lines:
Bring cat on bomber. Fire where cat looks.

alert_1
09-29-2005, 01:48 AM
All those bombers would be useless without fighter cover..except for Mossie and B2 Spirit

p1ngu666
09-29-2005, 02:07 AM
bomber command operated without fighter cover for along time, and the escorts where hardly ever close escorts.

most stooged around the beacons and airfields

still good enuff to inflict 50% losses out of a group of 100 nightfighters http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
killed/missing/injured and shot down, etc http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

nakamura_kenji
09-29-2005, 02:18 AM
do b-52 still have 20mm vulcan tail gun? and did ever have other defsive weapon, british nimrod carried sidewinder self defense sometime and so tu-95 bear carried AAM sometime

Aaron_GT
09-29-2005, 03:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I may've alread posted this factotum. During the war Freeman Dyson worked for some office or other in the Ministry of Defence and he was asked the best way to improve the dreadful losses Bomber Command was sufferring. After much extended cogitation the great man replied that the RAF should remove all the defensive armament from the heavy bomber fleet as it was ineffective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was the reasoning behind removing 'dustbin' ventral turrets on the Whitely, Wellington and Stirling - the turrent added relatively little to the defensive capabilities (especially at night) but did add to weight and drag. In the Halifax and Lancaster the defensive guns were less draggy as they were of three types: remote controlled, a blister (think early B17s before the ventral bath of the D) or unofficial mountings of holes cut in the floor. H2S made the first two impossible anyway.

The super Mosquito proposal in 1941 was interesting. Basically this proposed replacing 4 engined heavies with 7 crew with 2 unarmed planes slightly bigger than a Mosquito with 3 crew each. The long range bomb capacity was at least as good, less crew, and fewer engine hours per weight of bombs. But it depended on a high altitude Sabre engine that failed in its development. Also marshalling twice as many bombers onto a target might have been an air traffic control nightmare.

luftluuver
09-29-2005, 03:54 AM
Aaron, the time over target could be twice as long or two targets could be attacked. This would cause additional problems for the Germans. NF crews flying 2 sorties/night, extra wear and tear, maintainance on the a/c and Flak guns, spread out the German defences and so on.....