For what’s it worth (but I am biased of course).
Apart from performance and design difficulties The Halifax and Stirling fuselages were obviously roomier as compared to the Lancaster, and (I can only speak about my experiences in the Elvington example) the Halifax mainspar was not much of an obstacle. Due to the bulky flying gear it would be difficult to escape from the various exits for any given type. For example, the rear entry door of the Lanc was next to the horizontal stabilizer and I have read various stories about how dangerous it would be to evacuate with the possibility of hitting the tail with all due consequenses.
The Halifax also had, in case of a forced landing, a habit of breaking up in the main subassemblies, which absorbed the impact but gave the crewmembers inside a good chance for survival. In case of having to evacuate the aircraft in mid air and the possibilties of the enormous centrifugal forces it would be difficult again in any type to escape. It’s all to do about statistics probably.
Some reports stated that the brave Lancastercrews were sent earlier to bear the brunt of the attack and the poor old Halifaxes would come later to finish it off making it “easier” for them, also that Halifaxes were sent to easier targets, there was no such thing as an easy target. In reality the defences would be surprised by the Lancasters and fully operational as a result of it to await the rest of the main force such as the Halifaxes/ Stirlings. In any case again statistics and luck, experience etc etc. There are enough reports that the loss rate of Lancasters was also unacceptable.
What I want to know is that the number of Halifax lost in total never exeeds 2.000 examples but the general total loss rate for the Lancaster is 3.500 (roughly taken) while the total number of Halifaxes built was 6.178 and over 7.000 Lancasters.
Cheers
Cees
Sign In
