Jump to content

Myth Busting.....


Jack

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If you were to compare the B29 and the Lanc, you would find the B29 was limited by having two relatively small bomb bays, whilst the Lanc had one large one. And the small bomb bays ther B29 had where further reduced in usefulness by having a pressurised tunnel running through them, so that the crew could move about the plane's pressurised areas.

 

The lanc could carry really useful large bombs, but the B29 had to carry lots of smaller , less effective, bombs.

 

No good for Bunker busting, U boat Pens, Eathquake bombs or the like.

 

The B29 could only carry the Atomic Bomb after it had been modified to link the two Bomb bays. For this reason the Lancaster was initially carefully concidered as the delivery system for America's "Big Bomb" but eventually it was ruled out( American indepenance and pride rather than an unbiased concidered judgement??).

 

The Lab was capable of further development, into the Lincoln and ultimatley the Shackleton.

 

To my mind this makes the Lanc a far better airplane!

 

I have never seen anything about the B29 carrying Two Grand Slams. The Literature I have indicates its maximum bomb load was only 9072 Kg or 20,000 Lbs.

 

Where does your info about this come from Steve?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bovingdon had a Youth Custody Centre built on it as a softener to in becoming a fully blown Prison. Some of the "Battle of Britain" film aircraft were in and out of Bovingdon when the film was being made, and the B25 Mitchell used for Air to Air shots in this film also used the Airfield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been argued that the RAF should have only used the Mossie as it's main bomber.

 

Although not having the same bomb load as a lanc, you would have to have flown more missions to deliver the same tonnage, but being faster, op for op the Mossie had a much lower loss rate.

 

Having only two crew per aircraft compared to the seven in a lanc, you would have to lose aircraft in the ratio of three and a half mossies per each Lanc shot down. Using just Mossies would have saved aircrew and done the same job.

 

When compared to the B17 with a crew of 10, you would have to loose 5 Mossies for every B17 to have the same decimation of Aircrew the Americans suffered, and Five Mossies carry a lot more bombs than, one B17.

 

I would argue that ultimately the Mossie was the best Bomber, and would have been the sensible choice for allmost all bombing operations!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you were to compare the B29 and the Lanc..... ...........To my mind this makes the Lanc a far better airplane!

 

 

Re B-29 and Grandslams. I had/have a book somewhere with a photo of the aircraft carrying them on a flight test. I think they planned originally on carrying the Tallboy, and moved up to the Grandslam. I can't find it now but I couldn't publish the pic here anyway.

 

 

To say the Lanc's bomb bay was large is a bit misleading. What it did have was a long bomb bay, but not particularly deep, only about 3 feet. Both the B-17 and B-29 had shorter bomb bays that extended the full height of the aircraft. The Lanc was able to carry the very large bombs by being modified ( as was the B-29 ), and its high ground height assisted this, allowing the bombs to be under-slung ( ie Bouncing Mine, Tallboy and Grandslam ). The main disadvantage of the Lancs bay from a crews perspective, was it could not be accessed from inside the aircraft. Any bomb that 'hung up' could not be seen or be released by the crew.

 

The Lanc did carry a 4,000 lb 'Cookie' bomb and a mix of smaller bombs on missions, but 'area bombing' at night with a few large bombs was unlikely to achieve any real damage to industry unless you got a lucky hit. Aiming at a target with a mixed load was also pointless as the ballistics would be different causing either the smaller or larger bombs to miss. The chances of hitting the target were slim at night, even with target marking, when the bombing area could cover five square miles. For the RAF, many smaller size, but large in number of HE and incenduries were what destroyed the German cities and industries.

 

While the RAF's large single bombs were great for propaganda, structures which needed a large bomb to destroy them, needed to be hit in daylight to attain the accuracy needed. The vast majority of RAF raids were with smaller bombs on ordinary industry/cities. Most of the RAF's raids were at night, and not against 'hard targets'. To hit a small target in a city at night, required large numbers of smaller bombs. There were a few occasions where the Lanc was used in precision daylight raids with large bombs, but not many.

 

The Lanc may have been 'considered' for Atomic delivery, probably for political reasons to please the Brits, but it had several disadvantages compared to the B-29 which would make it an unlikely choice. Combat Range would have been a major deciding factor in choosing the aircraft. The A-bomb would have had to be under-slung to a modified Lanc, and this would have further cut range. Ceiling and speed were also against the Lancaster. Remember the Enola Gay made a steep diving turn to escape the blasts shock wave, and a slower Lanc, starting at a lower height would have been unlikely to escape the blast. The bomb was also not live at take off. It was armed in the air once away from home base, and this would also have not been possible with an under-slung weapon.

 

The RAF however, must have been more than suitably impressed by the B-29's carrying capacity and performance, as they operated them in the 1940-50's as the 'Washington B1' to fill the gap in the UK's Nuclear Bomber needs until larger jet aircraft such as the Canberra and 'V' Force came along.

 

The B-29 had a better range, was faster, and the largest internally carried weapons payload. At the later part of the war and in the cold war years that followed, this was what was needed. Oh, and the Lanc is ******* ugly, as were all British 'Heavies'!!! A squashed cigar with warts on the wings.

 

My money is still with Boeing.

 

Re Mossie - Yes, the Mosquito was a great aircraft, designed as a fast bomber from the start, and again, was designed with very different requirements to that of the B-17 back in 1934, and the B-29, but it did have its faults. I think the UK/Commonwealth would have struggled to build enough Mosquitos though if it were the primery British bomber. Only 7,781 were produced in their ten years of production, never mind just in the war years. While it was suitable for Europe, its range prevented its use in the Pacific, and it also had a habbit of falling apart in humid climates as the glue dissolved! ( quite embarrasing ).

 

The 'Best Bomber', 'Best Fighter' etc discussions, will go on as long as people can remember the aircraft. It also depends on your view point. For Arthur Harris, the best bomber was probably that which carried the heaviest load, though that doesn't always equate to larger destruction. For the aircrews, it was which ever one brought them back ( not bomb load ), and the B-17 probably came top in that respect, surviving damage that would have downed most other planes. For the ground crews, probably the plane which required least maintenance and was easiest to work on.

 

At the end of the day our opinions today don't matter, all that matters is that the Allies won with what they had. The cost was great, but nobody can say it would have been different if.......... We will never know, 'though it provides hours of discussion on forums such as this :angry: :dunno: ;-)

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is definitely no myth that equipment was buried by the departing Americans. A work associate of mine ( a John Oakley) was an Aircraft fitter at RAfFBovingdon, near Hemel Hempsted. He saw Equipment (including Jeeps being buried in Primrose wood at the end of the runway. When a siutable time had elapsed he went digging. He never found a jeep but all his hand tools, spanners etc he was using had been dug out of the ground at that location,

[/quoteWhich end of Bovingdon is primrose wood,does it still exist and is it public land ,quite fancy a treasure hunting trip as it is only 7or 8 miles from home

Nigel]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been argued that the RAF should have only used the Mossie as it's main bomber.

 

Although not having the same bomb load as a lanc, you would have to have flown more missions to deliver the same tonnage, but being faster, op for op the Mossie had a much lower loss rate.

 

Having only two crew per aircraft compared to the seven in a lanc, you would have to lose aircraft in the ratio of three and a half mossies per each Lanc shot down. Using just Mossies would have saved aircrew and done the same job.

 

When compared to the B17 with a crew of 10, you would have to loose 5 Mossies for every B17 to have the same decimation of Aircrew the Americans suffered, and Five Mossies carry a lot more bombs than, one B17.

 

I would argue that ultimately the Mossie was the best Bomber, and would have been the sensible choice for allmost all bombing operations!

 

 

Would this not have then put the RAF in the same boat as the Luftwaffe with no strategic heavy bomber and a need to build a LOT more Mozzies to drop the equal bomb load per raid as the Lanc. Which then leads to the wee problem of target congestion....

 

I would say that the Mozzie was the most versatile aircraft though considering that it had bomber, fighter, night fighter, U-boat hunter, target marker, bomber stream controller, SOE liaison and ground attack roles..........

 

The Lanc may look ugly on the deck but in the air it's (IMHO) a better looking and certainly better sounding aircraft than the B29. For me the B29 looks out of proportion when airborne and it sounds *****y awful - like 4 cans of bolts being shaken about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The important thing about any military kit is that 1 it works at the level of the battlefield. 2 You can make enough of it. German RADAR kit was superior to British but British stuff worked in the field, and the employment had been thought out. ME109 had the obvious advantage over Spitfire and Hurricane, of fuel injection, but did not have the range to fight over London, plus Luftwaffe tactics tied fighters to bombers, not ideal. Both World Wars were won by Logistics, thanks to the US stuff could be produced in 'Peace time ' conditions. German kit was very sophisticated, to sophisticated for the logistic and engineering back up. The German's had in service the Junkers 262 and the Aro 234, jet bomber/ reconnaissance. The first jet aircraft recce was by the Ar 234 over the Normandy beaches, the Allies never even knew it was there. However the aircraft had been rushed into service and couldn't be supported in the field. To be successful any equipment must work regardless of conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lancaster............ugly :schocked: NO WAY. :-D

 

Looks and SOUNDS miles better than B29.............as far as I'm concerned.

 

(And this is in NO way degrading any of these aircraft, which, after all were flown by young men, many who gave their lives, or ended up badley injured, to allow us to have this conversation.)

 

Good points, Tony.

It's Ok to have the technology, to build 'super machines', .......but if its at the expence of bulk numbers of 'inferior' machines, there's a good chance of still being the looser.

(something along the lines of the Sherman against the Tiger)

 

Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Americans intended to have a heavy tank which would have been able to take on the Tiger on more equal terms but Patton was determined on the fast medium tank and by the time the error was realised it was too late and they had to go with the Sherman. Another instance of Patton's bullying tactics causing problems not to mention the loss of so many young men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that inferior guns helped the Indians win in Custers last stand. I remember seeing a program about them and the battle. IIRC, the indians had guns which had poor accuracy at long range, but could be reloaded faster. In the close combat in which they fought, the poor guns performed better. Best weapons and equipment doesn't always mean a win.

 

Re looks and sounds of bombers, I prefer the B-17 over the B-29, but rank them both higher than the British heavies. Beauty of course is very subjective. I love the quiet whistle of the B-17's engines, muffled through the long exhausts and turbos. Anyone who saw the B-17 at Parham will know how quiet it was. The Lanc's sound has a harsh rattle to it ( coming straight from the exhaust stubs ), which to me implies brute force to drag the less than aerodynamic airframe through the sky.

 

Another myth - Jack could hold his drink at Bolero :-D :whistle:

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how many myths are out there regarding WW2.......???

 

I am going to start and happy to be corrected :coffee2:

 

 

 

3. Spitfires were not the hero's of the Battle of Britain - it was in fact the Hurricane with a 60% kill ratio?

 

 

 

Also myth it wasn't the Officers flying Spitfires been the aces, although they didnt do badly, the highest scoring for kills (17) was a Sergeant Frantisek who flew with a Polish squadron in a hurricane.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the Avro v. Boeing, I seem to recall reading somewhere that although the B17 was produced in response to a USAAC competition in 1934, that the Boeng company did actually use/refer to a British Air Ministry specification as a major part of their start point but that this has been forgotten with the passage of time. Regrettably cant find the reference, so I could be wrong given the same passage of time! So maybe we can claim the B-17 as being 'British' as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of technology was swapped. Britian had the designs buit not the manufacturing. Remeber Mustang was a superb low level attack aircraft with its original Allison engine, when fitted with Merlin it just excelled. In both world wars the American's copied tactics, improved equipment and developed manufacturiong techniques such as critical path..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just been searching my library!

 

The AAC specifications issued in 1934. One in April for an aircraft that would carry a 1 ton load for 5,000 miles, which resulted in the massive 35 ton Boeing XB-15. The idea behind it was to 'Reinforce' Hawaii, Panama and Alaska without the use of intermediate servicing facilities.

 

The other was in July for a new 'Multi-engined' aircraft to replace the Martin B-10. It had to carry a 2,000 lb load at 200-250mph over 1,020-2,000 miles. This resulted in the Boeing Model 299 ( the B-17 ). Much of the B-17 design was taken and developed from the XB-15 design experience.

 

In all my books, I can't find any reference to Boeing designers using a British Air Ministry specification in the design of either aircraft. There were however many other US aircraft designed for British specifications, the NA P-51 Mustang being one ( NA was asked to built the P-40 Warhawk under license, but said they could do better!!! ), and the Vultee Vengeance another.

 

If you find the reference, please post it.

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curiously regarding the discussion about B29, Lancaster and Mossie in this thread ...

 

A couple of nights ago I watched something on satellite about strange Allied inventions of WW2. It included a plan to fit one ounce incendiary devices (some bloke at one the big US universities invented napalm for the purpose) to be carried by bats dropped onto Jap cities where they'd find dark holes in attics etc of wooden buildings, then 30 minutes later the whole city would erupt in flame. By the time they had tested and proved it (and destroyed a USAF base because the artificially-hibernated bats awoke too soon ...) Project Manhatten had rendered the device obsolete. During the course of this section, I thought I saw a mossie in USAF markings. I had to rewind Sky+ to confirm it. I had never realised the Americans had ever taken Mossies.

 

Then they looked at Grand Slam. The programme was US sponsored and frankly they had their script all over for this one, frequently referring to Grand Slams as Tallboys and vice versa and getting their dimensions confused. But they showed a number of pictures of Grand Slam-equipped Lancs with the beasts loaded, including from directly blow in flight. Breathtaking? It nearly caused me an asthma attack!!!

 

According to the programme, only 41 Grand Slams were ever dropped. At least they got right the fact that Grand Slam remains the heaviest bomb ever dropped (heavier by a few pounds than a MOAB). Hang on, didn't the Russians recently announce the FOAB? Is it heavier than both?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve , which was the weird propshaft driven Aircraft that the US designed for UK, who hated it, and passed to USSR, who couldn't get enough of them? Was it the Airocobra?

 

 

Did'nt the Russians rename it a YAK ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...