Avro Manchester, Lancaster, Lancastrian, Lincoln, Shackleton

[pyro-manic]

For the bomber escort, what about the 40mm S-gun turret as trialled on the Wellington? One of those instead of the second dorsal .303 turret, and maybe another in the tail?

[Weaver]

A stab at Weaver's concept. I lowered the cockpit to clear the forward turret but the result is rather homely.

So, Lincoln's tail turret, twin dorsal 4-gun BP 0.303" turrets from the Halibag, and a Yank belly turret (not knowing what a Lucas or BP ball turret would look like).

That's interesting apo - cheers!

Couple of things:

1. Would it still need the H2S radar bulge? I thought only a minority of USAAF bombers carried radar, the rest releasing when the leader did?

2. Presumably you've lost the nose turret because the forward dorsal can fire forwards? In that case, how about a B-17G-style chin turret for the bomb-aimer?

[kitnut617]

1. Would it still need the H2S radar bulge? I thought only a minority of USAAF bombers carried radar, the rest releasing when the leader did?

2. Presumably you've lost the nose turret because the forward dorsal can fire forwards? In that case, how about a B-17G-style chin turret for the bomb-aimer?

1.  I would think that was because they did daylight carpet bombing Weaver, the radar would be needed mostly for navigation at night to make sure you're bombing the right area.

2. A Lincoln nose would solve the problem, twin .5's in there but then I would switch all the .303's to either a pair of .5's or 20mm's

[Weaver]

Thanks for all the info folks - very interesting! 

1. Would it still need the H2S radar bulge? I thought only a minority of USAAF bombers carried radar, the rest releasing when the leader did?

2. Presumably you've lost the nose turret because the forward dorsal can fire forwards? In that case, how about a B-17G-style chin turret for the bomb-aimer?

1.  I would think that was because they did daylight carpet bombing Weaver, the radar would be needed mostly for navigation at night to make sure you're bombing the right area.

Indeed, but then the premise of my idea is that the RAF is doing day bombing, USAAF style.

2. A Lincoln nose would solve the problem, twin .5's in there but then I would switch all the .303's to either a pair of .5's or 20mm's

So would I given the choice. My impression's always been that .50 cals were quite difficult for the RAF to get hold of until late in the war, but various people's info is suggesting that may not be the case. Besides, since this is Whiff World, you could always have Britain taking out a licence to manufacture the .50 cal at the same time it got one for the .303 version, with hindsight a damn good idea?

[kitnut617]

Thanks for all the info folks - very interesting! 

1. Indeed, but then the premise of my idea is that the RAF is doing day bombing, USAAF style.

A-ha! things become clearer and I would agree with you then.  So what would you use for the Master Bomber, a droop-snoot DH Hornet or stick with a regular Mosquito   

2.  Besides, since this is Whiff World, you could always have Britain taking out a licence to manufacture the .50 cal at the same time it got one for the .303 version, with hindsight a damn good idea?

Definitely the way to go in our world weaver   

[rickshaw]

A stab at Weaver's concept. I lowered the cockpit to clear the forward turret but the result is rather homely.

So, Lincoln's tail turret, twin dorsal 4-gun BP 0.303" turrets from the Halibag, and a Yank belly turret (not knowing what a Lucas or BP ball turret would look like).

That's interesting apo - cheers!

Couple of things:

1. Would it still need the H2S radar bulge? I thought only a minority of USAAF bombers carried radar, the rest releasing when the leader did?

They did that primarily because the USAAF failed to train their heavy bomber crews to the same standard as Bomber Command.  Each RAF bomber crew, including bomb aimer was expected to be able to operate independently whereas the USAAF crews were expected to only operate in formation.  Whilst that approach allowed the USAAF bomber formations to expand more rapidly (check out the rapid promotion rate for most USAAF senior officers during WWII - they oftem progressed from Major to Lt.General in the space of 2-3 years), it limited their tactical usefulness.   RAF heavy bomber squadrons often adopted the USAAF style of releasing their bombs on the leader's drop during daylight raids, late in the war but it was never considered to be as accurate as independently on the AP (Aiming Point).

2. Presumably you've lost the nose turret because the forward dorsal can fire forwards? In that case, how about a B-17G-style chin turret for the bomb-aimer?

'cause it distracts him from his primary job of dropping the bombs?   The forward dorsal would have to fire over the heads of the pilots.  I suspect that would never be particularly popular.   It would also not be able to depress.

My problem with this sort of added heavy defensive equipment is what does it do to the bomber's performance?  As the USAAF and the Japanese found when they attempted to create bomber escorts - the bomber escorts were too slow compared to the standard bombers once they had dropped their bombs.   Bomber Command's heavies would have to either sacrifice performance or payload to carry extra turrets.  As it was the B-17 carried a pitiful payload compared to the Lancaster/Halifax/etc., because of the heavy defensive armament carried.   You start forcing Bomber Command to fly daylight raids when the Luftwaffe is still very active and has the numbers and like the 8th Air Force, it will pay the price in casualties.  Which is why the 8th Air Force was forced, despite all the publicity and PR spin to make most of their raids on the periphery of the Third Reich, rather than strike at its centre, as Bomber Command did at night.

[NARSES2]

I've read somewhere that some RAF crews prefered the .303"s because of the extra amunition that could be carried and that the effect profusion of fire had on the attacker.

I know the twin 20mm turret developed by Bristol only carried something like 120 rounds per gun ? So a 40mm S or P type might carry 60/70 at best.

As for heavily armed RAF day bombers then surely the effective payload would have been reduced to such an extent that you might just as well re-equip Bomber Command with Mosquitos. Save on crews and probably safer for the crews and more effective then heavily armed slow Lancs and Halifax's ? Again I've read somewhere that the USAAF was considering switching some B-17 squadrons to P-38 bomb carriers (2 x 1,600lb) in 1946. (The Chain Lightning could carry 4,000lb in theory) Now I know the bases would have been in occupied territory and nearer the targets, but the concept is the same. Once the payload drops to such an extent you might as well go for a smaller airframe.

Still an Lanc with extra turrets would look "cool".

Chris

[Weaver]

Just a general point folks: I'm not "promoting" the gunned-up daylight Lanc as my genius idea for winning WWII. As has been ably argued, it would probably be a bad idea, however, bad ideas often get put into practice in real life. Now we're talking about the-universe-next-door here, and if such things do exist then, pound-to-a-penny, decision-makes make just as many cock-ups over there as they do here....

If there's a generic flaw to whiffery, it's a tendency to push reality towards perceived perfection, whereas it's often the errors and imperfections in the real world that provide the most interest.

[NARSES2]

Now we're talking about the-universe-next-door here, and if such things do exist then, pound-to-a-penny, decision-makes make just as many cock-ups over there as they do here....

Never - mine's perfect 

If there's a generic flaw to whiffery, it's a tendency to push reality towards perceived perfection, whereas it's often the errors and imperfections in the real world that provide the most interest.

Absolutely Weaver. Thats why I like all those Italian and French pre WWII designs.

[rickshaw]

Just a general point folks: I'm not "promoting" the gunned-up daylight Lanc as my genius idea for winning WWII. As has been ably argued, it would probably be a bad idea, however, bad ideas often get put into practice in real life. Now we're talking about the-universe-next-door here, and if such things do exist then, pound-to-a-penny, decision-makes make just as many cock-ups over there as they do here....

If there's a generic flaw to whiffery, it's a tendency to push reality towards perceived perfection, whereas it's often the errors and imperfections in the real world that provide the most interest.

Yes, however, as evolution shows, those dead ends which can't compete are invariably weeded out.  In the case of warplanes, decisions are made upon the basis of may preconceptions but invariably when they encounter the hard, cold face of battle, those that fail because of those mistakes and cockups don't allow their users to win with dire consequences.   

In your alternative universe while different decisions might be made, one suspects that similar outcomes would result.   Bomber Command might decide to go for daylight raids and so create the doctrine to support it and the bombers to achieve it but as I pointed out, what happened to the 8th Air Force which attempted it was that they found until they got the long-range escort fighters to protect their formations and the night-time attacks by Bomber Command started to have an effect on German industry, in the deep industrial heartlands of the Third Reich, they would be somewhat limited to attacks on the periphery.  This in turn would result IMO in either a prolongation of the war or you have "Butch" Harris change strategy when losses become so high that daylight raids cannot be sustained.  Just as Curtis leMay did over Japan.

I'd actually prefer to see the 8th Air Force abandon its pointless adherence to its failed pre-war doctrine of daylight precision bombing.   How about B-17's stripped of their heavy defensive armour and armament and used on night-time raids?   Would we see B-17Fs and Gs which looked more like Ds and Es?  What about adoption of the Mosquito (or more likely a metal equivalent because the British aircraft industry simply didn't have the resources to build large numbers of Mosquitoes), en masse?   What would have happened if the Germans had made more of an effort in Electronic Warfare?   What if they'd devoted more effort to night fighters?  As von Moltke suggested, "no plan survives contact with the enemy,"  or as the Robbie Burns suggested, "The Best Laid Plans O' Mice and Men Gang Aft Aglay."  Sure, explore the different trouser leg of time but beware of the likely consequences of what will result from that decision (or decisions) being made.

[Weaver]

Yes, however, as evolution shows, those dead ends which can't compete are invariably weeded out.  In the case of warplanes, decisions are made upon the basis of may preconceptions but invariably when they encounter the hard, cold face of battle, those that fail because of those mistakes and cockups don't allow their users to win with dire consequences.   

Yeah, but they're fun while they last: HOW much attention does the BP Defiant get? 

In your alternative universe while different decisions might be made, one suspects that similar outcomes would result.   Bomber Command might decide to go for daylight raids and so create the doctrine to support it and the bombers to achieve it but as I pointed out, what happened to the 8th Air Force which attempted it was that they found until they got the long-range escort fighters to protect their formations and the night-time attacks by Bomber Command started to have an effect on German industry, in the deep industrial heartlands of the Third Reich, they would be somewhat limited to attacks on the periphery.  This in turn would result IMO in either a prolongation of the war or you have "Butch" Harris change strategy when losses become so high that daylight raids cannot be sustained.  Just as Curtis leMay did over Japan.

Maybe it DID result in a prolongation of the war then. The real WWII was pretty much a story of Hitler making strategic mistake after strategic mistake: maybe in this parrallel the F-up fairy was more even-handed....

I'd actually prefer to see the 8th Air Force abandon its pointless adherence to its failed pre-war doctrine of daylight precision bombing.   How about B-17's stripped of their heavy defensive armour and armament and used on night-time raids?   Would we see B-17Fs and Gs which looked more like Ds and Es? 

Well indeed: my proposal wasn't a one-change effort. Maybe in this parrallel the Yanks put more effort into radar and navaid development than we did (not an unreasonable idea, given their general technical prowess) and THEY adopted night bombing first while Britain had no option but to persevere with day bombing for lack of technical capability to do anything else.

What about adoption of the Mosquito (or more likely a metal equivalent because the British aircraft industry simply didn't have the resources to build large numbers of Mosquitoes), en masse? 

Or then again, why couldn't the Americans learn to build the wooden wonder for themselves? They're not exactly short of trees, and it has the same advantage of using non-traditional-aircraft skills and resources from the furniture and carpentry industries.

[rickshaw]

Yes, however, as evolution shows, those dead ends which can't compete are invariably weeded out.  In the case of warplanes, decisions are made upon the basis of may preconceptions but invariably when they encounter the hard, cold face of battle, those that fail because of those mistakes and cockups don't allow their users to win with dire consequences.   

Yeah, but they're fun while they last: HOW much attention does the BP Defiant get? 

Or the Blackburn Roc or the Skua.  Defiants were pulled off daytime ops as soon as their casualty rate became excessive.

In your alternative universe while different decisions might be made, one suspects that similar outcomes would result.   Bomber Command might decide to go for daylight raids and so create the doctrine to support it and the bombers to achieve it but as I pointed out, what happened to the 8th Air Force which attempted it was that they found until they got the long-range escort fighters to protect their formations and the night-time attacks by Bomber Command started to have an effect on German industry, in the deep industrial heartlands of the Third Reich, they would be somewhat limited to attacks on the periphery.  This in turn would result IMO in either a prolongation of the war or you have "Butch" Harris change strategy when losses become so high that daylight raids cannot be sustained.  Just as Curtis leMay did over Japan.

Maybe it DID result in a prolongation of the war then. The real WWII was pretty much a story of Hitler making strategic mistake after strategic mistake: maybe in this parrallel the F-up fairy was more even-handed....

It was already in this universe.  Who was it that suggested that, "victory goes to those who make the least mistakes"?  Hitler made his share of cockups, so did the Allies.  The difference though, was that the Allies didn't assume that they were inherently superior merely because of an accident of birth, so learnt from their's whereas the Axis did not.   Your decision to adopt daylight bombing might prolong the war.  If you're willing to accept that, its OK, but just be aware of it.

I'd actually prefer to see the 8th Air Force abandon its pointless adherence to its failed pre-war doctrine of daylight precision bombing.   How about B-17's stripped of their heavy defensive armour and armament and used on night-time raids?   Would we see B-17Fs and Gs which looked more like Ds and Es? 

Well indeed: my proposal wasn't a one-change effort. Maybe in this parrallel the Yanks put more effort into radar and navaid development than we did (not an unreasonable idea, given their general technical prowess) and THEY adopted night bombing first while Britain had no option but to persevere with day bombing for lack of technical capability to do anything else.

Possible.  I believe unlikely but possible.  A case of swings and roundabouts.

What about adoption of the Mosquito (or more likely a metal equivalent because the British aircraft industry simply didn't have the resources to build large numbers of Mosquitoes), en masse? 

Or then again, why couldn't the Americans learn to build the wooden wonder for themselves? They're not exactly short of trees, and it has the same advantage of using non-traditional-aircraft skills and resources from the furniture and carpentry industries.

Unlikely.  The Americans were wedded by 1940 to metal construction.  Indeed, they had largely started its mass production in aircraft design and manufacture (yes, I'm aware of Hugo Junker's contribution but it was the Americans with their designs in the 1930s which really kicked it off).  However, if the RAF was to abandon the heavy bomber in favour of the light, unarmed, high-speed one, it would have interesting ramifications on the whole war effort.   I wonder what would have been adopted?  As I pointed out, British industry wasn't geared to the mass production of wooden aircraft - what unused timber working capacity there was, was taken up by the relatively small Mosquito effort.   I can't think of anything that the British developed which might have fulfilled the role.   Anybody care to make a suggestion?

[Mossie]

I've read somewhere that some RAF crews prefered the .303"s because of the extra amunition that could be carried and that the effect profusion of fire had on the attacker.

Chris

I've also heard that some crews were quite keen on the .50, there are definitely pics around of them fitted to Lancs.  From what I've read, it depended on the preference of the crew themselves & also them finding some .50's left around by the USAAF.  Basically, if a Squadron found itself in a station recentley vacated by Americans, the crews would hunt the place looking for surplus equipment.  Either that, or they might tap up a nearby friendly USAAF station.  They'd then get onto their own mechanics to mod the mountings to take the new MG's.

[jcf]

I've also heard that some crews were quite keen on the .50, there are definitely pics around of them fitted to Lancs.  From what I've read, it depended on the preference of the crew themselves & also them finding some .50's left around by the USAAF.  Basically, if a Squadron found itself in a station recentley vacated by Americans, the crews would hunt the place looking for surplus equipment.  Either that, or they might tap up a nearby friendly USAAF station.  They'd then get onto their own mechanics to mod the mountings to take the new MG's.

The Lancaster VII had a Martin dorsal turret with twin .50 and the F.N. 82 turret with twin .50 was a standard fit
on late Mk. I and an option on the Mk. III.

A pair of Martins in place of the BP quad turrets would possibly be a good choice for your multi-turret Lanc.

[kitnut617]

Unlikely.  The Americans were wedded by 1940 to metal construction...

Perhaps but their entry into the war certainly sparked their interest in "non-strategic" materials for aircraft construction.

A US-built Mossie would appear quite feasible. Packard built Merlins. The Mossie's Sitka spruce came from the Queen Charlottes. Cranking out Mosquito airframes in the Pacific Northwest from wood barged/rafted down from British Columbia would seem to make sense. Certainly simpler than shipping lumber by rail to Toronto or by freighter all the way to the UK.

According to the Sharp/Bowyer book, 1034 Mosquitos were built in Canada during the war, all the production could have been done up here.