On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:49:11 +0100, John Halliwell
wrote:

They evolved that way, from roughly similar airframes as a starting
point. Lancasters flying by day would soon develop heavier armour,
especially around the engines, less bombload in exchange for more fuel
to burn for higher height on the ingress route, and heavier armament
like .50 calibres in the rear turret - all of which they were adopting
by 1945, which cut into their bombload margin over the B-17.

Interesting point, any sources for this. I haven't heard about
increasing armour for daylight ops, or trading bomb load for fuel.

Look at the trend evident in the Rose turreted B.1/B.IIIs, and the
engine installation in the Lanc IV which directly influenced the
Lincoln (two-stage Merlins with armoured, annular radiators), let
alone the massively increased armament in the Lincoln (e.g. twin 20mm
Hispanos in the mid-upper turret). The only way to get more fuel in
the Lanc for Tiger Force operations was in the bomb-bay, which had
obvious implications for the bombload carried. This just represents a
gradual and evolutionary change in operational emphasis.

The
B1 Specials had virtually everything not nailed down stripped out, lost
their armour and most of their guns.

And consisted of one squadron. Two, if you count 9 Squadron.

The Lanc achieved its greatest
bombload in 1944-5 by daylight.

But I think the future development pattern was clear, and in favour of
increased defensive resources.

The 50s in the rear turrets were IIRC fitted only as a pair instead of
the quad 303s.

Sure, but this still represented an increase in effectiveness at
daylight engagement ranges.

Gavin Bailey
--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003