Not a winnable argument one way or the other this. But to my mind there are four measures …
– Striking power (factors: ability to lift weight and bomb storage)
– Relative loss rate (factors: speed, altitude, defensive armament and construction)
– Relative fatality rate (factors: capacity to fly damaged, ease of exit)
– Usability (factors: ease/cost of construction, repair/maintenance, flight characteristics)
And it’s hard to compare night with day although some observations can be made.
Both UK and US bombers initially operated on the popular pre-war doctrine “the bomber will always get through” and initial unescorted daylight operations were found to be disastrous. The UK decided to fly at night (and thus reduce chances of being hit) whilst the US decided to focus on defensive firepower and tactics and introduce long-range escorts. The preferred aircraft types were aligned with these perspectives, the UK preferring strike power over defence and the US vice versa.
Here’s my attempt to rate the later UK night bombers:
LANCASTER – heaviest strike power bar none, lower loss rate than fellow heavies o/a altitude (HALIFAX III excepted), extremely fatal if hit (very little armour, quick to burn and lose ability to fly) most Lancs lost (half the 7000 built) took all their crew with them, usability good (very serviceable and easy to fly)
MOSSIE – low strike power, minimal loss rate (speed and altitude), don’t know re. fatality rate (but I’ve read lots of stories of both crew dying – did they disintegrate easily?), don’t know re construction and maintenance but believe it was a delight to fly
HALIFAX – good strike power (not far off “normal” Lanc load), high loss rate in early examples because of ceiling (rectified by the Herc powered MkIII – photo in a post above), good/low fatality rate (relatively sturdy and easy to exit – pilot excepted), construction and maintenance I cannot comment on, flyability I’ve heard that it was less refined than the Lanc but once adapted to liked by airmen who’d flown both
STIRLING – low strike power (bomb-bay design), high loss rate (the first of the heavies, its ceiling affected by wing-span constraints as noted above), good survivability rate, again don’t know re construction, maintenance etc.
And I’m sorry but I don’t feel confident to comment to any great degree re. the US bombers except for a few passing observations. The B17 was rugged and it took a lot to knock it out of the sky, it was also very survivable (well over 50% survival rate of crews shot down) but it’s bomb load was limited as others have noted. Interestingly the B26 carried the same bomb-load (4000lbs) and had a lower overall loss-rate than the B17. The B24 I know next to nothing about, ungainly looking but perhaps someone could comment re. relative loss rates etc.
Back to the UK. As I understand it (please correct me if wrong) the Lanc was preferred for (a) its striking power (b) it’s loss rate and (c) the logic of deploying one common aircraft to the greatest extent possible (training, maintenance, etc., etc.). Its relative fatality rate is very rarely mentioned.
As to which one, if any, is over-rated? None of them by those in the know. Neither the various commands then, nor I trust this forum now, would argue that the war was won by any one of these aircraft, or that it would have been lost without it. That said, I have from time to time heard similar qualities attributed to the Lancaster. 😉
Sign In
