Internet Security, music, and Dad Jokes. And pets - it's a blog, after all.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
World War II Lancaster crew chatter
ambisinistral has it. And fascinating it is, too, in that Lawrence Olivier stiff upper lip keep clam and carry on sort of way. I wonder if this was an old propaganda bit recorded for the war effort? And I'm of the opinion that if the Lancaster had had belly turret, it might have been the finest bomber of the war. Might. That enormous bomb bay was part of the plane's greatness.
Four magnificent Rolls Royce Merlin V 12 engines might have helped the Lanc to be the finest. IMHO the only downside of the Lanc aside from the lack of a belly turret was that they were butt ugly. There are few sounds in the world as good as a RR Merlin at take off power.
Borepatch: "And I'm of the opinion that if the Lancaster had had belly turret, it might have been the finest bomber of the war."
Might? What makes you think it wasn't?
Roger: I can't think of a single WW2 heavy bomber on any side that wasn't ugly, with the possible exception of the B-17 E/F before they stuck the chin turret on it.
Wolfwalker, the Germans mounted upward firing machine guns in the BF-110 night fighter. They'd fly underneath and a lot were shot down because there was no way to return fire.
Other than the lack of a ball turret, it was a beautiful plane. Ugly, but did amazing things.
Minor correction by a WW2 aircraft fanatic: the Bf-110, Ju-88, and He-219 were all fitted with the schrage musik installation of two 20mm cannon, not machine guns, fixed to fire forward and upward. And yes, they were lethal. Lotta Lancasters were shot down that way.
OTOH, a lotta B-17s and B-24s were shot down in attacks from above and behind, or above and ahead, when they did have guns that would bear -- and their gunners could see the attackers coming. Also, I suspect that if Lancasters had flown in flights of, oh, three or four in loose formation, their combined defensive firepower would have helped a lot. The bomber stream was a brilliant tactic, but every tactic has weaknesses and countertactics.
The British had a different perspective on bombers and air gunnery than the USAAF. I discussed it about halfway through my lengthy Weekend Wings article about air gunners:
That's one of the reasons they didn't have a belly turret - to carry more bombs. Also, given the limited distance at which their gunners could see enemy fighters, it seemed a bit superfluous. For daylight operations, it would have been a different story - but the Lancaster wasn't designed for daylight operations. It was a night bomber.
Four magnificent Rolls Royce Merlin V 12 engines might have helped the Lanc to be the finest.
ReplyDeleteIMHO the only downside of the Lanc aside from the lack of a belly turret was that they were butt ugly.
There are few sounds in the world as good as a RR Merlin at take off power.
Borepatch: "And I'm of the opinion that if the Lancaster had had belly turret, it might have been the finest bomber of the war."
ReplyDeleteMight? What makes you think it wasn't?
Roger: I can't think of a single WW2 heavy bomber on any side that wasn't ugly, with the possible exception of the B-17 E/F before they stuck the chin turret on it.
Wolfwalker, the Germans mounted upward firing machine guns in the BF-110 night fighter. They'd fly underneath and a lot were shot down because there was no way to return fire.
ReplyDeleteOther than the lack of a ball turret, it was a beautiful plane. Ugly, but did amazing things.
Great vids and yeah, the Lancs were IMPRESSIVE!!!
ReplyDeleteMinor correction by a WW2 aircraft fanatic: the Bf-110, Ju-88, and He-219 were all fitted with the schrage musik installation of two 20mm cannon, not machine guns, fixed to fire forward and upward. And yes, they were lethal. Lotta Lancasters were shot down that way.
ReplyDeleteOTOH, a lotta B-17s and B-24s were shot down in attacks from above and behind, or above and ahead, when they did have guns that would bear -- and their gunners could see the attackers coming. Also, I suspect that if Lancasters had flown in flights of, oh, three or four in loose formation, their combined defensive firepower would have helped a lot. The bomber stream was a brilliant tactic, but every tactic has weaknesses and countertactics.
The British had a different perspective on bombers and air gunnery than the USAAF. I discussed it about halfway through my lengthy Weekend Wings article about air gunners:
ReplyDeletehttp://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2008/07/weekend-wings-25-air-gunners.html
That's one of the reasons they didn't have a belly turret - to carry more bombs. Also, given the limited distance at which their gunners could see enemy fighters, it seemed a bit superfluous. For daylight operations, it would have been a different story - but the Lancaster wasn't designed for daylight operations. It was a night bomber.