A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

#1 Jet of World War II



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old July 23rd 03, 02:52 PM
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.