![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:00:12 +0100, John Halliwell
wrote: The crucial point though, is that you're assuming the Lanc would have to follow US practises and fly in the big box formations. Standard RAF practice was to tighen up daylight formations around three-plane elements in vics. This was not as tight as a USAAF combat box, but under a heavier fighter threat it probably would have evolved further in that direction. Whilst this may have suited the B-17 with machine guns sprouting everywhere (although I don't think it was appropriate before P-51D escorts were available), it may not have suited the Lanc. You simply can't enforce US practises on UK types in an attempt to 'equate' them with one another. Close formation flying both increased the concentration of the bomb pattern and the effectiveness of return fire from the gunners. The RAF were extolling this in 1939 with Wellingtons over Heligoland Bight, and continued to do so in "large-scale" daylight ops (e.g. the Lancasters in the Augsburg raid). One Halifax squadron removed the nose and mid-upper turrets, armour, flame dampers and various other bits, the lighter weight and less restricted engines flew higher, faster and their losses were reduced significantly. This works at night, where difficulty of interception is the primary defence. It would have been a lot less effective when some measure of resiliance and defensive capacity was required, which is why the RAF stuck self-sealing tanks, protective armour and increased armament on their bombers after their daylight experiences in 1939. Increasing height and cruising speed at night made it harder for night-fighters with a marginal performance advantage to achieve an interception, particularly within a context where there were easier targets at slower speeds and lower height to engage first. The same dynamic doesn't neccessarily apply in daytime, in fact loose formations and seperation from the main body positively attract enemy fighter attention in those circumstances. 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | July 16th 04 05:27 AM |
FS: 1996 "Aircraft Of The World: A Complete Guide" Binder Sheet Singles | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | July 14th 04 07:34 AM |
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | January 26th 04 05:33 AM |
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | December 4th 03 05:40 AM |
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book | Jim Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 11th 03 06:24 AM |