PDA

View Full Version : Lancaster and Halifax Bombers - Daylight Bombing?



rcocean
09-02-2006, 12:48 PM
Could the Lancaster and Halifax have really been used as effective bommbers in Daylight raids?

I noticed Bomber command did do large daylight raids after March '44 but it was usually in France/Belgium/Holland. It wasn't until Sept '44 they bombed a German target in daylight. Even then they only went when the target was cloud covered and it was less than 100 miles from the British Front lines. It couldn't have been Luftwaffe fighters, there were too few of them.

I wonder why? Was the service ceiling too low? Lack of armour making them easy targets for FLAK? Inability to fly in close formation?

rcocean
09-02-2006, 12:48 PM
Could the Lancaster and Halifax have really been used as effective bommbers in Daylight raids?

I noticed Bomber command did do large daylight raids after March '44 but it was usually in France/Belgium/Holland. It wasn't until Sept '44 they bombed a German target in daylight. Even then they only went when the target was cloud covered and it was less than 100 miles from the British Front lines. It couldn't have been Luftwaffe fighters, there were too few of them.

I wonder why? Was the service ceiling too low? Lack of armour making them easy targets for FLAK? Inability to fly in close formation?

Low_Flyer_MkVb
09-02-2006, 12:56 PM
Paul Brickhill's 'The Dambusters' has stuff on Lancaster daylight ops. Bear with me, I'll try and dig some more stuff out for you.

rcocean
09-02-2006, 01:11 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_MkVb:
Paul Brickhill's 'The Dambusters' has stuff on Lancaster daylight ops. Bear with me, I'll try and dig some more stuff out for you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

ploughman
09-02-2006, 01:43 PM
They did daylight stuff, Normandy Cobra type bombing and later in the war, but they weren't so great at close formation as they didn't have the lateral stability of the B-17s and B-24s with their big fins and the ships would wiggle about a bit.

***Edit for idiot errors, you can tell I've been to the pub for 2 eh?***

rcocean
09-02-2006, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
They did daylight stuff, Normandy Cobra type boming and later in the wa, but they weren't so great at close formation as they didn't have the lateral stability of the B-17s and B-24s with their big fins and the ships would wiggle about a bit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the response.

I was thinking the lack of co-pilot would have made close formation rather difficult on 8-9 hour mission. I hadn't thought about lateral stability. Didn't the B-24 have a similar problem?

My guess was FLAK, but I can't find the Operational ceiling for the Halifax or the Lancaster. No problem finding the service ceiling, thats all over the net, but not the operational ceiling. I know B-17 bombed from 2-25 thousand feet. If the Lanc or Halifax had to bomb the target in broad daylight at 18,000 they would have been sitting ducks, especially with no armor. But thats just a guess.

p1ngu666
09-02-2006, 05:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rcocean:
Could the Lancaster and Halifax have really been used as effective bommbers in Daylight raids?

I noticed Bomber command did do large daylight raids after March '44 but it was usually in France/Belgium/Holland. It wasn't until Sept '44 they bombed a German target in daylight. Even then they only went when the target was cloud covered and it was less than 100 miles from the British Front lines. It couldn't have been Luftwaffe fighters, there were too few of them.

I wonder why? Was the service ceiling too low? Lack of armour making them easy targets for FLAK? Inability to fly in close formation? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

depends how u define effective, in terms of hitting the target, then yes.

in general terms, they where setup for night time missions, they did fly abit lower than the americans (15,000 to 20,000ft) but not in the tight boxes, more a loose gaggle of aircraft, they where more nimble than the american bombers, u could dodge about in the flak, while the american formations pretty much hadto sit and take it.

i dont think they where incapable of holding a tight formation either, lancs where stable enuff to conduct the most acurate level bombing raids of the war.

its probably the memories of daylight raids with heavy losses, plus the difficulties in getting the usaaf escorts secured and organised between the two organisations.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
09-02-2006, 06:02 PM
Might find these sites of interest...

http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/canadianmilitaryhistory/02-03.asp

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/theartofwar/prop/the...forces/INF3_0142.htm (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/theartofwar/prop/the_fighting_forces/INF3_0142.htm)

http://home.clara.net/heureka/lincolnshire/avro-lancaster.htm

http://www.rcaf.com/archives/archives_aircraft/l_lanc/index.htm

http://home.clara.net/heureka/lincolnshire/augsburg.htm

Hope it helps.

leitmotiv
09-02-2006, 10:07 PM
Martin Middlebrook is your man: THE NUREMBURG RAID, THE BERLIN RAIDS, THE BATTLE OF HAMBURG, THE PEENEMUNDE RAID, and, especially, THE BOMBER COMMAND WAR DIARIES. If you really want to understand the story of the use of RAF Bomber Command in daylight, look at THE STRATEGIC AIR OFFENSIVE AGAINST GERMANY by Webster and Frankland---the offical British history of Bomber Command's war. The best one-volume source on RAF WWII history is THE RIGHT OF THE LINE by John Terraine which has excellent material on Bomber Command's war. Any of these will be available from inter-library loan.

Bomber Command tried daylight operations with mediums and heavies repeatedly throughout the war. Shortly after the declaration of war in 1939 Wellingtons tried to hit German warships in port in daylight and took a drubbing. All that fall various experiments in using the Wellingtons and Hampdens in daylight resulted in unacceptable losses. Once again in the Norwegian Campaign in April 1940 British bombers were tried in daylight with no success. Sensibly, they were not thrown away in futile attacks on German army columns in France 1940, like the junior members, the Battles and Blenheims. With the introduction of the Stirling in early 1941, attempts were made to use the heavies in daylight once again. This time surrounded by dozens of Spitfires in short-range "Circus" missions over France. Stirlings, Manchesters, and Halifaxes were thrown into the campaign to destroy SCHARNHORST and GNEISENAU in Brest in 1941 and flew many unpleasant daylight missions. The brand new Lancaster was believed by some to be a super bomber. Soon after its introduction in 1942 daylight deep penetration raids were flown to try to knock out pin-point targets in Danzig and southern Germany. At this time Lancs had heavy armor available and crews could choose how much they wanted to carry (see STRIKE HARD, STRIKE SURE by Ralph Barker). Unfortunately, their .303 rifle-caliber machine guns were grossly out-ranged by the MG151s on German fighters. Harris wanted to upgun the heavies immediately and, instead, found himself in a bureaucratic war with the Air Ministry (see BOMBER COMMAND by Sir Arthur Harris). Finally, in 1944 the RAF heavies started to get .50 caliber turrets---some official mounts, some privately made to Harris's specification when he was fed up with Ministry stonewalling. By 1943, the heavies were only being used at night. This changed in 1944 with the pre-D-Day requirements. The heavies were used in the daylight several times during the Normandy campaign. The equipment of RAF fighter squadrons with long-range Mustangs allowed the heavies to be used in daylight under escort in late 1944 and 1945. Actually, Bomber Command's precision target marking tactics, perfected in mid-1944, worked better at night than during the day. Single Mosquitoes could mark individual buildings for saturation bombardment by placing markers right on the roofs. This would have been suicide in the day. Bomber Command was hitting more accurately at night than the AAF Air Forces were in daylight by 1944-45, and, in fact, contrary to popular belief, the Americans used area bombing frequently because they had no means to bomb accurately in overcast weather (see the excellent BLANKETS OF FIRE by Werrell).

VW-IceFire
09-02-2006, 10:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rcocean:
Could the Lancaster and Halifax have really been used as effective bommbers in Daylight raids?

I noticed Bomber command did do large daylight raids after March '44 but it was usually in France/Belgium/Holland. It wasn't until Sept '44 they bombed a German target in daylight. Even then they only went when the target was cloud covered and it was less than 100 miles from the British Front lines. It couldn't have been Luftwaffe fighters, there were too few of them.

I wonder why? Was the service ceiling too low? Lack of armour making them easy targets for FLAK? Inability to fly in close formation? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

depends how u define effective, in terms of hitting the target, then yes.

in general terms, they where setup for night time missions, they did fly abit lower than the americans (15,000 to 20,000ft) but not in the tight boxes, more a loose gaggle of aircraft, they where more nimble than the american bombers, u could dodge about in the flak, while the american formations pretty much hadto sit and take it.

i dont think they where incapable of holding a tight formation either, lancs where stable enuff to conduct the most acurate level bombing raids of the war.

its probably the memories of daylight raids with heavy losses, plus the difficulties in getting the usaaf escorts secured and organised between the two organisations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would have thought them to have used the RAF Mustang squadrons. Most of those Polish squadrons were flying Mustang III's...and I thougth that their chief duty during the latter half of 1944 was to escort the RAF bombers on the daylight raids.

leitmotiv
09-02-2006, 11:03 PM
A healthy Merlin Lancaster cruised at 20,000 ft. The Stirlings were lucky to get above 16,000, and the Halifaxes with Merlins were nearly as bad off as the Stirlings. The Hercules bumped the Halifaxes up to about 20,000 when introduced in late winter 1944, and the lengthened wingtips introduced later brought them to Lanc altitude (but they never came near Lanc bomb capacity, that was why Harris hated them). The RAF used special formations in the daylight over Normandy in 1944 which were loose and not at all like the boxes favored by the Americans (see CAEN: ANVIL OF VICTORY by McKee).

Aaron_GT
09-03-2006, 02:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">All that fall various experiments in using the Wellingtons and Hampdens in daylight resulted in unacceptable losses. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


This was without fighter escort, though, and the USAAF suffered just as badly when unescorted. In the RAF there was more serious suggestion about removing armament from bombers than in the USAAF, the logic being that a faster bomber would be harder to intercept and barely any easier to shoot down when intercepted, with a smaller loss of crew when actually shot down. The concern was, though, that pilots would be very unhappy about flying what was still a relatively slow aircraft when unarmed, as only the Mosquito B series was fast enough to have a decent chance of evading interception entirely.

Barnes Wallis did propose a Vickers super bomber, a huge unarmed beast carrying a single grandslam bomb that would climb to its operating altitude of 40,000 feet over the UK before heading to Germany in daylight, but the grandslam Lancaster was the nearest equivalent. A high alitude version of the Lancaster (unarmed) was also proposed.

Aaron_GT
09-03-2006, 02:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Hercules bumped the Halifaxes up to about 20,000 when introduced in late winter 1944, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


??? The Hercules was introduced in 1943 in the Mk. III.

luftluuver
09-03-2006, 05:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
.........(but they never came near Lanc bomb capacity, that was why Harris hated them). .................... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What, the shovel out again? The Hallie BIII (HP61) had a bombload of 13,000lb. A Lanc could carry 14,000lb of conventional bombs. So a BIG 1000lb difference. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Aaron_GT
09-03-2006, 10:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What, the shovel out again? The Hallie BIII (HP61) had a bombload of 13,000lb. A Lanc could carry 14,000lb of conventional bombs. So a BIG 1000lb difference. Eek </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the maximum short range load. For longer range missions the Lancaster could carry more. In this Harris was right. The Halifax loss rate was less than that of the Lancaster, but even then a Lancaster would have carried 50% more bombs to Germany before it was destroyed or retired from service.

AFAIK, though, the Cookie-carrying versions of the Mosquito delivered more tonnage in each aircraft lifetime, on average, than the Lancaster, due to a low loss rate. Typically a Mosquito managed four times the number of missions that a Lancaster did, with about one third the load.

leitmotiv
09-03-2006, 10:59 AM
Halifax Mk III service introduction (not start of production---there is a difference), see THE NUREMBURG RAID and THE BERLIN RAIDS cited above. Berlin loads, i.e., maximum long range loads carefully analyzed in THE BERLIN RAIDS cited above. Halifax loss rate was catastrophic before Hercules marks entered service---this is why the Lancaster had to shoulder the winter 1943-44 Battle of Berlin alone, see THE BERLIN RAIDS. Halifax loss rate was not lower than Lancasters'---the survival rate was generally higher in bail-outs due to more and better placed escape doors (discussed at length in THE NUREMBURG RAID and THE BERLIN RAIDS).

Aaron_GT
09-03-2006, 11:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Halifax Mk III service introduction (not start of production---there is a difference), </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If by winter 1944 you mean very early 1944, then winter 1944 for the introduction of the most produced version of the Halifax would be correct (production was from 1943). If this is what you mean, then I appologise, but by winter 1944 I assumed you mean late 1944.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Halifax loss rate was not lower than Lancasters' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Halifax loss rate per aircraft per mission was 0.56%, Lancaster 0.74%. That's an average over all Marks, and the B.III was the most numerous. I don't have a figure for B.I & II loss rates, so you might be right on that.

If you look at average loss rate per ton of bombs put on target, though, then the Halifax is definitely inferior with the average Halifax only deliverying two thirds as much as it didn't have the ability to carry as large a load as the Lancaster as far. To Harris this was the important figure - the most efficient way to put the most bombs on the target that cost the least in war production. With the B.III at least you had a plane that could do a lot of missions, but wasn't delivering enough bombs in total over its lifetime, and not enough in a short enough timescale on each mission.

luftluuver
09-03-2006, 11:42 AM
Lanc bombloads for you Aaron, http://www.lancaster-archive.com/Lanc-bombs-Loads.htm

Lanc BI
Service ceiling (mean weight - 55,000lb) = 24,500'
Service ceiling (max weight - 72,000lb) = 20,000'

Range (standard fuel load + 10,000lb bombs) = 1040mi

Range (1 aux tank + 7000lb bombs) = 2680mi

The Hallie had a VERY slightly greater loss rate per sortie. Unlike some here who think a well stocked library is easily at hand, here is a chart,
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/BoCoLosses.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Hercules bumped the Halifaxes up to about 20,000 when introduced in late winter 1944, </div></BLOCKQUOTE> The service introduction of the BIII was Feb 1944. I wunder how P/O CJ Burton got his VC in March 1944 while flying a BIII?

jensenpark
09-03-2006, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Halifax Mk III service introduction (not start of production---there is a difference), see THE NUREMBURG RAID and THE BERLIN RAIDS cited above. Berlin loads, i.e., maximum long range loads carefully analyzed in THE BERLIN RAIDS cited above. Halifax loss rate was catastrophic before Hercules marks entered service---this is why the Lancaster had to shoulder the winter 1943-44 Battle of Berlin alone, see THE BERLIN RAIDS. Halifax loss rate was not lower than Lancasters'---the survival rate was generally higher in bail-outs due to more and better placed escape doors (discussed at length in THE NUREMBURG RAID and THE BERLIN RAIDS). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


No comment one way or another except to say The Berlin Raids you've mentioned is an excellent book. Real eye opener. A highly recommended read.

Aaron_GT
09-03-2006, 12:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Hallie had a VERY slightly greater loss rate per sortie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I stand corrected (well sit, actually)

rcocean
09-03-2006, 12:44 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_MkVb:
Might find these sites of interest...

http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/canadianmilitaryhistory/02-03.asp

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/theartofwar/prop/the...forces/INF3_0142.htm (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/theartofwar/prop/the_fighting_forces/INF3_0142.htm)

http://home.clara.net/heureka/lincolnshire/avro-lancaster.htm

http://www.rcaf.com/archives/archives_aircraft/l_lanc/index.htm

http://home.clara.net/heureka/lincolnshire/augsburg.htm

Hope it helps. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Thanks it helps alot.

rcocean
09-03-2006, 12:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Bomber Command was hitting more accurately at night than the AAF Air Forces were in daylight by 1944-45 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let - thanks for the information. By "hitting more accurately", I assume you mean on an overall basis, that is comparing combined US 8th AF blind bombing (Cloud cover 8/10-10/10) and visual bombing vs. BC night bombing. It should be noted that in the Spring of 1944, BC would often miss whole cities when flying beyond the range of OBOE.

ploughman
09-03-2006, 12:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rcocean:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Bomber Command was hitting more accurately at night than the AAF Air Forces were in daylight by 1944-45 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let - thanks for the information. By "hitting more accurately", I assume you mean on an overall basis, that is comparing combined US 8th AF blind bombing (Cloud cover 8/10-10/10) and visual bombing vs. BC night bombing. It should be noted that in the Spring of 1944, BC would often miss whole cities when flying beyond the range of OBOE. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure. Probably more so than the Air Corps, but everyone screwed up. The 8th bombed Switzerland at least once.

This links to (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj00/sum00/helmreich.html) a nice little essay about the occassional infringement of Swiss neutrality by the Army Air Forces.

rcocean
09-03-2006, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rcocean:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Bomber Command was hitting more accurately at night than the AAF Air Forces were in daylight by 1944-45 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let - thanks for the information. By "hitting more accurately", I assume you mean on an overall basis, that is comparing combined US 8th AF blind bombing (Cloud cover 8/10-10/10) and visual bombing vs. BC night bombing. It should be noted that in the Spring of 1944, BC would often miss whole cities when flying beyond the range of OBOE. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure. Probably more so than the Air Corps, but everyone screwed up. The 8th bombed Switzerland at least once.

This links to (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj00/sum00/helmreich.html) a nice little essay about the occassional infringement of Swiss neutrality by the Army Air Forces. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not accussing Bomber command of being idiots who missed cities because they couldn't navigate. The fact is that given the electronic aids available, it was impossible for BC in 1994/45 to reliably hit even a target as big as a city, when out of the range of OBOE. Within OBOE range, BC could put 15% of its bombs on a target as small as a synthetic oil plant, outside OBOE range, {USSBS) it could miss Berlin on a bad day. {see Nuremberg Raid by Middlebrook}

8th airforce on their blind pathfinder raids could only put 5% on bombs on target. [USSBS]But in good visablity that went up to 25% [USSBS]As stated, the blind attacks on 'RR marshalling yards' covered by 10/10 cloud cover, were nothing more than area attacks. Thankfully, 8th AF could not bomb as accurately or carry the tonnage BC could, so civilan causualites were much less.

p1ngu666
09-03-2006, 02:56 PM
i read about a occasion where theres a american ambassidor trying to patch up relations with the swiss because they where mistakenly bombed.

then a fleet of bombers arrive overhead and bomb a town/city (zurick maybe) that was surronded by a lake http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

berg417448
09-03-2006, 03:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i read about a occasion where theres a american ambassidor trying to patch up relations with the swiss because they where mistakenly bombed.

then a fleet of bombers arrive overhead and bomb a town/city (zurick maybe) that was surronded by a lake http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Swiss caught it from all sides. The RAF and the Luftwaffe both managed to bomb them as well. By the end of the Battle of France IIRC the Swiss claimed to have shot down 10 or so Luftwaffe aircraft in their airspace.

luftluuver
09-03-2006, 11:51 PM
Aaron,

Hallie BIII

Range with 13,000 lb (5897 kg) bomb load: 1,260 miles (2028 km)

leitmotiv
09-03-2006, 11:59 PM
I hate to write this, but it has to be done---a quick dive into the internet is not getting good information. As with all weapons, their effectiveness depends on the period in which they were in use. During the period of the Battle of Berlin, the Halifax was being slaughtered until the point was reached Harris had to remove the the Merlin Halifaxes from operations to spare the crews. Like it or not, the service introduction, not commencement of production, of the Halifax III was early in 1944. Barton lost his life in one of the first IIIs to go on ops while trying to land a damaged aircraft after the Nuremburg raid disaster in March 1944. It's all in Middlebrook's NUREMBERG RAID and THE BERLIN RAIDS, or the recent Osprey publication on Halifax units. As for the figure for the Halifax load-out---a healthy Merlin Lanc was able to carry 8,000 pounds of ordnance to Berlin---peruse the Official History by Webster and Frankland for this and, again, Middlebrook's BERLIN. The Halifax and Stirling were only able to carry about half that amount to Berlin. If you rely on the internet, you will learn nothing. Middlebrook's books are hardly rare. I suggest buying BERLIN to get a grip on the subject. Max Hastings' BOMBER COMMAND has an excellent chapter on the dreadful losses experienced by 77 (Halifax) Squadron.

luftluuver
09-04-2006, 12:48 AM
Here we have leitmotiv babbling again. Warm up your scanner and post some stats.

leitmotiv
09-04-2006, 02:00 AM
The wet hen squawketh.

WOLFMondo
09-04-2006, 02:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rcocean:
Could the Lancaster and Halifax have really been used as effective bommbers in Daylight raids?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lancasters were used in daylight raids on uboat pens and docks, mostly on tallboy raids. There is even a story of a Lancaster hitting a merchant man with a tallboy. They were also used after d-day in daylight raids using tallboys and grandslams on bridges and viaducts.

I think the Tirpitz missions weren't in the dead of night either.

ploughman
09-04-2006, 03:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
There is even a story of a Lancaster hitting a merchant man with a tallboy.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ouch!

faustnik
09-04-2006, 01:38 PM
III/JG26 intercepted an escorted formation of Lancasters and Halifaxes on Aug. 8th 1944. The RAF target was V-1 emplacements north of Paris.

II/JG26 intercepted 30 Lancasters and 2 Mosquitos around 1:00pm on December 23, 1944. The mission was an unescorted daylight raid on Koln railroad station.

These are just a couple examples on RAF daylight raids late in the war.