an elderly gentleman I know was in the Royal Australian Air Force and was seconded to Britain during WW2 and served on Lancasters as a radio operator. after many close calls and crash landings, he survived 30 bombing missions. He's an interesting fellow to talk to, still fit and healthy and about to celebrate his 100th birthday
You are going to love this: Speaking of United States style bomb-bay bomb-racks; When I was in the Airforce [81 to 85] there was an Airforce publication "TAC ATTACK" and there was always a good story from the past and often from WW Twice. One such story goes like this. A B25 Mitchell bomber was on a mission to bomb the Mitsubishi Aircraft factory. A 250 pound bomb failed to release and hung up on the rack. It had fallen out of position and could not be secured. So, according to SOP of the day, they exited the area with bomb-bay doors open in the hope that the bomb would fall free at some point and not smash through the doors. Occasionally the plane was "shaken" by the pilot in the hopes of encouraging gravity to take the bomb away. (this causes drag and they fell behind their squadron mates) At some point the bomb fell free, they closed the bomb-bay doors, and got out of Dodge. Foward to after the war when the USAAF was researching how effective they were as according to enemy records. They came across an obscure little footnote of a factoid. On the particular date of that bomb raid on the Mitsubishi Factory, it was reported that a lone B25 Bomber dropped a single bomb on the Mitsubishi Headquarters' building that was located some distance from the factory. So it was that after that B-25 bombed the factory, they dropped one on the headquarters for good measure!
My late father was in the AIF, or Australian Imperial Forces based in New Guinea during WW2. He was a Lance Corporal but his particular designation was a Master Layer, or aircraft identifier in the anti-aircraft unit! Their unit, shot down quite a number of Mitsubishi bombers & various Japanese planes during their years based up there! So your boys did their job as our boys did! My dad knew a number of American pilots & crews during this terrible time & spoke very highly of them! 🇺🇸🤝🇦🇺👍🏼 “Lest We Forget”… 😢
A GREAT STORY! B17s on a raid on Germany missed their target, but (unknowingly) hit the one and only factory which manufactured fuel for the Me 163 Komet. After that, the Komet was reliant on pre-existing fuel stocks.
Ok I am really blown away ! i never put the wing location together with single or twin tail configuration. I am suddenly going to be looking at every plane thru different eyes. Great stuff Greg easily the best researched channel I have come across and I follow hundreds of people many of those weapons related. So you are in impressive company in my books .
Hey Greg. You made my day today. It is my grandfather's 102nd birthday today. He would have loved your channel. The Lancaster was his favorite plane by far. What a nice coincidence that you posted a video of the Lanc on his birthday. Thanks for all your hard work and thanks for bringing back some memories of my much missed grandpa.
My father flew more than 60 missions over occupied Europe in a Lancaster Pathfinder from 1942 to 1944. Thankfully, he and his crew were rotated back to Canada after it was determined that they had done enough for the RCAF with the war obviously moving to its inevitable conclusion. On more than one occasion, their Lancaster brought them back after raids where the damage from flak or German fighters might have doomed a different plane to crashing before reaching England. We who came after them owe them so much. R.I.P. Wilfred G. Young D.F.C.
I appreciate the attention Greg pays to detail. So, I'm an engineer. I don't design aircraft, I do electrical "stuff". However I do believe the key to almost everything in our society working vs not is attention to very small details as observed in the broad picture. Many other channels and many historians don't pay attention to these details but they are critical, and I appreciate the attention Greg pays to them.
One of my uncles did two tours as a rear gunner on Lancs. While he would not talk much about it in general he did say that for the best view he had taken out the centre panels on his turret to improve visibility which also gave no reflections which might have caused confusion but it made things 'bloody cold'. He also said that being in an aircraft that corkscrewed to avoid a fighter was very frighting, apparently his crew had agreed that they would not open fire if they saw a fighter unless there was no other option as four or even 6 303's were not much cop against canons. He also mentioned that on more than one occasion he had seen what was left of rear gunners being washed out of the remains of their turrets with hosepipes after the aircraft had returned from a raid.
To shoot or not to shoot? It is not always appreciated that the core function of the air gunner was not to shoot down the enemy but to preserve his own aeroplane - which are not quite the same things. The very fact of operating in the dark provided a degree of, what we are now pleased to call, ‘stealth’. If a gunner saw an enemy aeroplane he had two options, engage or evade - and the ‘corkscrew manoeuvre’ does appear to have been reasonably effective in throwing off a night fighter. On the other hand many crews maintained that if you opened fire first enemy fighters tended to break off and look for easier meat. This sort of conjecture was difficult to verify, of course. What one needed to know was whether the crews that had failed to return had been runners or fighters - and there was no way to establish that with any confidence. In late 1943 a comparative analysis of the records of Nos 1 and 5 Gps was carried out and this concluded that 5 Gp’s aggressive ‘shoot first’ policy had increased the risk of attack and, worse, had resulted in an increase in the number of cases of gunners firing on other bombers.3 Nevertheless, while appropriate advice was offered, it was difficult to lay down the law in these circumstances, because, once a night bomber had disappeared into the darkness, despite the fact that there would have been several hundred others involved, each crew was effectively operating in isolation as an independent entity and it conducted its business as it saw fit. Several gunners were credited with a number of ‘kills’, of course, but I suspect that many more went through the war without ever firing their guns in anger. page 70 ROYAL AIR FORCE HISTORICAL SOCIETY JOURNAL 45 on line
Also I remember in Paul Brickhill's novel..... "On June 1, Avro experts fitted new automatic pilots in the Lancasters for the D-Day operation, and Nicky Knilans at last found out why his much-cursed "R-Roger" flew like a lump of lead. They found it needed longer elevator cables than the others, inspected to find out why and discovered that the elevators had been put on upside down at the factory.".
I worked with a former RAF wireless operator who had also flown in Halifaxes and he said he preferred them to the Lancaster as he said the Halifax was easier to get out of in a hurry!
Here in Australia there is a beautiful Avro Lancaster ; “G for George” in the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. My dad was an Australian WW2 veteran. Although he is in the AIF, army, heavy anti-aircraft unit, based mostly in New Guinea, he loved aeroplanes generally! As a child in the early 70’s he took me to Canberra to see “G for George”. So impressed was I, that I bought a scale model & still have it! Albeit, mines a little worse for wear after more than 50 years of flying unfriendly skies!🤣👍🏼😎🇦🇺
Re: the "Oh, my, God, Becky" tail - Greg, I appreciate your videos for their in-depth coverage and your matter-of-fact delivery. But seriously, you owe me a monitor and keyboard now.
Great video. Looking forward to the next part. Back in 1993 I helped restore the BBMF Lancaster's top turret, molding replacement perspex and replacing the framing...
In 2014, I saw the British and Canadian Lancasters at an air show in Devon, England. They came very low over the headland where I was standing before turning to display along the coast. They came in with the huge bomb doors open displaying the bomb racks. They are truly intimidating machines and must have been horrible to get on the wrong side of.
I can remember being at an air show with the Air Cadets. There was a low level flypast with a B17 and a Lancaster. The Lancaster thundered along, shaking the crowds teeth, the B17 in comparison whispered along sounding more like a medium bomber.
In the land of the deluded...the man with facts is king. I can't describe how much enjoyment I get from your videos...regardless of the subject. Sure...anything aeronautic automatically gets my attention but that, too often with other channels, turns to disappointment when the details I crave are passed over for hackneyed fluff. There is something eminently satisfying by having my misconceptions destroyed by learning real information...by knowing instead of assuming. Every video of yours is a clinic. Thanks for doing what you do.
If you have not already subscribed to gregs channel and you like planes I recommend you do this man is like that history teacher you wished you had in school.
I was still hanging bombs in the same type of Bomb Bay in 1968! Shackletons of RAF Coastal Command were a modification of the Lancaster, and was the first operational aircraft I worked on after joining the RAF at the start of a 27 year career.
Thanks for the detailed info Greg. I live just 5 miles from the only flying example in North America. I see it flying regularly during the year, and shall be armed with knowledge on my next visit to the Canadian Warplane Heritage.
excellent job as always Greg. Just on the twin tails, you are 100% regarding the stability however we were taught another reason Avro went with it was for the aircraft to be able to fit in the standard Brit hangar, the Bellman type
My Great Uncle was a Lancaster Rear Gunner during the war, served, and actually survived two full tours, which in itself is remarkable! To make a few clarifications about how the gunners, especially the rear gunner of Lancasters operated, at least at Night. Uncle Bill never flew a daylight mission to my knowledge, he certainly never mentioned one, and unfortunately he is no longer with us to ask. Primarily they acted as eyes, the crews were fully aware of the disadvantages of the .303's, indeed Uncle Bill recalled that in 60 missions he only actually fired his guns once outside of test bursts. The primary role of the rear gunner was to spot the night fighter, then inform the pilot of its approach so that the pilot had the best information available to evade. Evasion was usually through hard manoeuvres which included a rapid descent, the idea being to throw the night fighter off long enough for the Lancaster to escape. Obviously the radar turrets of the late war helped with this, but on his first tour they had not been developed (he spent quite a while as an air gunnery instructor between active tours). I found many of those photos interesting as they confirmed something that he always used to tell us about rear gunners removing much of the perspex from their turret, especially to the front. What many do not appreciate though is how cramped those turrets are. Rear gunners in Lancasters could not wear their parachutes in the turret, not enough room, they stored them just inside the fuselage where they could reach them through the turret doors. Then, if the aircraft was burning, which it often was, so blocking their escape through the rear fuselage escape hatch they would then have to travers the turret fully to one side and bail out through those doors. I have seen the turret doors on a Lanc's rear turret, they are not very big, the gunner was wearing a heated suit, heated boots, so even a fairly small guy would have difficulty moving in there. Part of the reason for the terrifying casualty rate of the rear gunners, besides the fact they were the first target of the attacking night fighters, was it was just so difficult to get out of the damned things!
Famous story about a rear gunner who was unable to reach is parachute and jumped without it. He fell through a lot of tree branches and landed in several feet of snow and lived!
If you’d like to see a beautiful example of an Avro Lancaster, take a look on the Australian War Memorial site in Canberra, Australia! We have “G for George” on permanent display. My dad was an Australian WW2 veteran & he first took me there in the early 70’s. Your late uncle & men like him had probably the worst job during the war. I’m glad he survived & had a life. “Lest We Forget”…🇦🇺🤝🇬🇧
@@fafner1 I know the story, he jumped from 18,000 feet, rear end of the aircraft was burning, and it had taken his parachute, decided he would rather jump than burn. He COULD reach his parachute, the problem was not that he could not reach it but that the thing was on fire! And the story has been verified. Some of his crew were captured and were able to identify him as their rear gunner rather than a spy, and German analysis of the wreckage actually found the remains of his parachute in the wreck. The only issue I have with the story is this idea of him being treated as a spy by his captors, he was obviously wearing the kind of clothing that aircrew in non pressurised aircraft wore at the time over his obviously RAF uniform.... That part of the story makes no sense... I mean, spies are supposed to be kinda incognito right? So why insert a spy in full flight gear wearing the uniform of the RAF? I suspect that part of the story may not be correct, at least not entirely. But the fact he jumped from 18,000 feet without a parachute and survived is verified......
@@andrewd7586 There is a flying example that is part of the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight, and I have been lucky enough to see her flying on a couple of occasions. We all have a debt to people like your father, my Great Uncle, both my Grandfathers (one was a Royal Marine, the other a Spitfire mechanic), and so many others.
@@alganhar1 I was fortunate enough to be in London in 1990 for the 50th Anniversary of The Battle of Britain & was there for the unbelievable fly over of those stunning WW2 aircraft! I also went to the air museum which was incredible! We all owe every single one a debt we can never hope to repay. Hence we remember them, honour their memories & never forget.
Me to. My father serviced twin engine bombers as well. He told me that the plane could not carry the same weight of bombs if it had to fly further. So I take bomb load plus fuel load equals warload. He also told me that they took some of the armour off the Halifaxes. He wasn't precise about why, but I got the impression that it wasn't helping and it made the plane slower. After the war and they had begun making a living for themselves they started finding some of their friends again and enjoyed each others company. My mother never spoke about what she did, certainly not any stories. Oddly, she once brought out an old photo. Hamburg:- walls without roovs, windows without glass. Yet the rubble had been cleared from the streets.
If you ever get around to it, I would love to see a series of videos on the B-24 as well! Lots of people compare and contrast the B-24 with the B-17, and I would love to hear your take on the matter as well!
Fantastic vid Greg....I must say an opening photo seemed ironic, the crew bicycles having their rear mudguards painted white for safety while they prepare for a ten-hour night mission over Germany. War is nuts. I was very fortunate to clamber all over a Lancaster I found in a barn in Canada (near Head Smashed In Buffalo Jump). That mainspar was indeed a problem to get over, and the rear turret was very claustrophobic. But what a superb, empirical machine.
Impressive work, as always. If you started this after the flap about the A-bomb raids, you pulled together a lot of material very quickly. Great work on the technical aspects, and a very well done on the photos.
Thanks for the technical disquisition that is understandable from us with a modest knowledge if aerodynamic engineering but totally enthusiastic about the topic.
These are the best and most informative aviation related vids uploaded on YT by a country mile. This vid was brilliant. Learnt so much I had no idea of. I've seen the British Battle of Britain Memorial Flight Lancaster a few times (the first time flying into a setting a sun as it flew over my house), and it is an awesome sight to see in the air. There was actually a Lancaster factory not far from where I grew up, and the grandmother of someone I went to school with had actually worked there during the war. Happy someone has decided to make such an in depth vid therefore.
Nice work as usual Greg. It's a welcome breath of fresh air to have a presentation that just looks at facts re the (immeasurable) British contribution in WWII, rather than the usual heroic tales of British superweapons. Thus the way will be cleared to see the reality: Brits fighting alone, stuck with a war they did not want, understandably ill-prepared, but nevertheless doing the real dirty work at a time when it was not clear if or how victory could be achieved.
Thanks James. I am trying to keep all this stuff balanced. Too many videos ignore the problems these crews had to deal with. It's not just the Lancaster, the P-47, P38 and other had some issues which I talked about as well. Yet somehow, the Lancaster is treated like the Queen, somehow above criticism.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Everyone can see you are being fair, there's just always going to be fanboys on some subject (myself included). Plz keep up the good work, your vids are awesome!
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Those UK blokes feel a bit overshadowed by us Yanks when it especially when it comes to WWII, in my observation. It is the definitive event that cleared away any argument over the preeminent world power…at least between the two. Obviously there was that cold thing…
@@nivlacyevips Thanks for your patronising observation, but I can assure you that we don't feel overshadowed by anyone, and most certainly not by Yanks. We had our time but were already a shrinking power by the time WWII began. We've been around long enough to be able to deal with that fact, sad though it may be for us.
@@Soupdragon1964 *There were only two winners in WW2.... Britain was not one of them.* Certainly when it came to aircraft technology Britain has always lagged years behind America, Germany and France... Countries that that still mass produce aircraft.
Excellent video, just well-presented facts, no jingoism or BS. I have been very interested in aircraft since I was a small boy, particularly WW2 when I was younger (born in 1954 - UK boys' magazines were full of WW2 material well into the 60s... 'Achtung - Spitfeuer!'), and I learnt a lot from this. Interesting photos too. I particularly like how Greg emphasises how those who worked on and fought in the aircraft had to contend with its shortcomings. A mythology has grown up around the Lanc and too often it is presented as an almost perfect aircraft (unlike, say, the Stirling, whose faults are often the first thing mentioned) and as Greg rightly says, this can severely diminish the enormous contributions of ground and flight crews. This is what you want from a history channel.
I liked the discussion of dihedral, which clarified the behavior I saw in the flying models I built as a kid. I knew the basics of dihedral and its effect and built planes with varying dihedral. Greg’s explanation was better than the information I had at the time.
Hi Greg, great video, looking forward to the rest. I have yet to be disappointed, they all beat anything on TV, that's why I am A patreon supporter. thank you
Awesome video as always. Thanks, Greg! Regarding the labels of "high wing" vs. "mid wing" vs "low wing" I think a better technical description starts with noting the thrust line as a datum, and those terms are relative to their locations as compared to the thrust line. Then the horizontal stab is also in a position relative to the thrust line and is often located above the wing centerline (ignoring the airfoil shape for the moment) to avoid the downdraft from the generation of lift that would give an upward pitching moment that varies with speed. Depending on the desired flight characteristics and role, you'd locate the wing and stab accordingly relative to the thrust line. I suppose other datums could be selected - the wing centerline - but given the forward thrust vector that seems a good choice and its opposed by the wing's drag component - hence the importance of the wing above or below the thrust line and the amount of leverage (the moment arm) it generates. Just my two cents worth. Fact check, please?
Absolutely love the video. Especially interested in the discussion of the turrets. The Lancaster is oft criticized for being less defensible than American bombers, having less armament etc. Your comment about their usefulness in night operations got me thinking. I'd love to hear more about this topic.
Let's see if the oft-forgotten Lancaster II variant gets a mention. (That one was powered by four Hercules radial engines and came standard with bulged bomb bay doors allowing carriage of the 8,000-lb HC bomb.)
@Glen Towler Freeman Dyson proposed that, IIRC. It wasn't just about speed, but also loss of fewer crew as it was surmised that most lost were due to flak, accidents or nightfighters they never saw coming, with more guns not likely to help with any of those scenarios. The problem was the Lancaster would still have been vulnerable as it would still have been slow, and then morale of crew that felt defenceless would have been so poor there would have been a mutiny. Dyson was correct in logical terms, but ignored the human element. The reverse is true - the chances of a German fighter pilot being shot down by guns on a B17 was low, but all those tracers flying around had a an effect on willingness to press home attacks. But the loss rate on unescorted raids showed the real killer of fighter attacks was escorts.
@@primmakinsofis614 people note it was slower, but it did have a bilges bay and more drag. It very often retained its FN. 64 turret as the bulged bay was incompatible with H2S, but you still see photos of ones with just a fairing there. You'd think a Preston - Green would be a good option there, if just as a look out post.
Always enjoy the little side-facts your videos contain - ever since I was a kid browsing through "history of aviation"-type books (you know the kind - lots of images of cool planes, combined with the least amount of technical explanation they could get away with), I was a believer of the "dihedral wings always return the plane to level" myth, as in the wings would automatically generate correcting momentum in the roll orientation. Thinking of it today, should have been obvious that there is nothing to it in that regard (obviously there is no change in roll momentum from the orientation of the plane relative to the horizon), but it's one of those concepts that sounded good and is sort-of-halfway-in-a-roundabout-way-semi-correct, as it does help stability; but I'm very glad you cleared up the whole thing - before your vid, the wings of those C-17/IL-76 you showed made zero sense to me, I actually thought they flex upwards enough in flight to turn dihedral again...
Actually there are 5 wing to fuselage attachments (for mono-wing aircraft.). Low wing, Mid wing, high wing, shoulder wing and parasol wing. On shoulder wing (like the B-24 (just look at a picture taken fro above the plane.)) and parasol wing (think of the PBY Catalina) can have part, or all, of their wing with Anhedral! Some planes have the "Gull Wing" where they have a short dihedral out to their twin engines and then either no dihedral, nor anhedral (B-25, which is a mid wing), or a slight anhedral.... (The F4U Corsair, and the Ju-87 have inverted gull wings).
Hello Greg, we have had never saw or talked. I would like to thank you for your channel. It is incredible source of detailed and nicely explained knowledge about planes and engineering in general. I am really impressed by you work. And second thing, curse on you. Every time I am under impression that I know something about something, I find out that I have no idea. I don't like it, but please continue. It hurts my pride but you making me smarter person. Great work. Regards from Prague.
Indeed Greg. Men more then airplanes fought the war, no matter if they were designing, building, flying or maintaing them! As usual a great video, going to me a great Lancaster mini serie. Thanks!
The Lanc is regarded with great warmth. My biggest bugbear about the plane was within bounds of its limitations. The escape hatch was a notorious problem, and - well I will speak of its price in a moment. Always at the heart of the problem with the Brits - was being limited in many regards which people often overlook. It went into the war in an unready state across the board, and in many areas a case of limitations and catching up is almost always visible. 303s, engines, lack of armour. The Lanc was able to take a great bombload a long way. Its was smaller than the other heavies (so its war cost to make was somewhat lower..) - and IIRC correctly - the flight support and crew requirements has made it the most heavily supported plane in British history (Factory staffing, ground crew - flight crew). An interesting side point on engines was that another aircraft that was a good plane in principle suffered like the Manchester. The Westland Whirlwind which used a pair of RR Peregrins - suffered from the lack of development, and production time and units available. So it was a bit off that RR then stuck two together in an X config, but that is for some other time. In all cases, an argument existed by Mosquito time frames about the heavies. The Mozzie could take the 4000lb load to Berlin as the B17 often carried, and could do so in half the time, and with an enormously lower resource and crew cost, and a much lower loss rate. It could not match Lancaster loads, but that is a side point. A note on American airmen, and their planes. I'm British. When I travel in the UK, to places that are near to where their airfields used to be, pubs nearby sometimes retain history. One that I had a few pints in has plaques on it's walls. Those plaques are in memory of US airmen who in 43 flew daylight missions with a 0.5 mission survival rate and suffered terrible losses. Etched into brass - pictures of B17's - and crews. Its a debt I am always mindful of, as young Americans came here in the fight for freedom, climbed about their planes facing by statistics certain death - in the fight that today has provided the very freedom I am so very fortunate to be a very thankful beneficiary. That debt can never be repaid, and no words I can ever write can thank them and their loved ones for the gift their gigantic price rendered. In lighter conversation, I would always plump in the Lanc vs B17 pubtalk for a Lancaster, but I should be ever thankful to all the planes, and all the crews. A final note, and harking back the to escape hatch. RAF bomber command lost 55,000. It took the war right to Germany, and then for a long time, Bomber command crews were treated badly, tainted by the claims made of Dresden and other missions. The Lancaster for whatever reason retained the love of the public - while the crews who flew her were mistreated. Only recently has Bomber command crews - seen a change with more reverence for their efforts. Night after night they would go into German skies, wrecking the German nations war making capacity, at enormous human cost it is fair to say on both sides. Along with Allied aircrews and planes - these missions greatly damaged, harmed, limited and havoc'd Germans ability to wage its war - and at the heart of that British effort was the Lancaster. Bomber Harris in terms of war, waged a terrible war - one which we had to fight, and we should remember with reverence the crews who did so. Many many thanks for taking time to speak about it.
Thanks for a great post. About Bomber Harris I think more should be said. He was a difficult man for other RAF Air Marshalls to work with. When all the evidence pointed to the founding of a Pathfinder Force as the best way to improve the notoriously poor accuracy of RAF night bombing, Harris opposed it both actively and passively. The most outstanding Air Marshall the RAF had in WW2, Wilfrid Freeman, would get seemingly deliberately unhelpful communications from Harris, and would in turn reply in a brusque, borderline rude, manner. Freeman said "The only way with Butch (Harris) is to treat him roughly." Harris was a stubborn man by all accounts who hated to follow orders if he didn't agree with them. Having finally accepted he had to form the Pathfinders, Harris made the perfect choice of a tough Australian called Don Bennett to lead it, but even then he had a tendency to interfere with and undermine Bennett. Incidently, Bennett's troubled working relationship with Harris did not stop him from supporting his bosses legacy as the 'right man' for the job. Harris's most egregious act was his attempt to avoid co-ordinating the RAF bombing campaign with that of the daylight bombing USAAF in the lead up to D-Day. This undoubtedly put huge strain on his relationship with Bennett, a very efficient and determined leader, who was greatly affronted by Harris's claim that RAF night bombing was not accurate enough to co-ordinate with day bombing. Harris seems to have been motivated a great deal by revenge for Luftwaffe bombing of British cities in 1940-41. During the war a large proportion of the British public approved of this motive for bombing German cities but after the war ended Bomber Command veterans did not receive their due because of the lasting stigma of bombing civilian targets. Harris was obviously no hypocrite in this regard, but his conduct during the war did seem to indicate a desire to "get the rubble to bounce" in single-minded fashion. His stubbornness and insubordination did not help Bomber Command's post-war reputation because it was all too easy for his critics to point to them as evidence he was an indiscriminate killer. After Freeman left a supervisory role over him, Harris became harder to control by his superiors until the end of the war.
@@neilpemberton5523 Many thanks for this info. I like to think I know my stuff, and to a certain level I do, but this is next level info. Harris (I think this is my opinion rather than perhaps 'the truth') - was the absolute drIving force in making bomber command the hulk smash thing. And in that, there is indeed a lack of nuance. Harris was indeed a vengeful force, but one can argue that in fighting back against the Germans, and in delivery of hammer blows - that was to a point needed. In the video - there was a point of angry comms from Harris about poor 303 guns and lack of better defences, so I would say this shows the man did care on detail - to some degree. The levelling of British cities and the outrage meant that I think the majority of British society was in no real mood to demand nuance. It is true that basically in the propaganda, claims were made contrary to the brutal facts. Late in the war, once victory was in sight, perhaps the mood changed, and certainly after the war people wanted to revise or change what happened because they did not like the outcome war brings. th-cam.com/video/5ujzVqwJnB0/w-d-xo.html The man was an absolute driving force - and we can today say we don't like his 'experiment' - but all I know is that the bombing while it did not totally break the German war machine - it devastated delivery, production, transport and operation. And provided a 'second front'. In that video link, at the end, was a .. moment of contemplation. Prior to speaking of Japan. The west went from barely being able to strike back with magnificent Blenheim boys who fought against terrible odds, all the way through to the heavies, and in our case 55,000 casualties on our side, and absolute city wrecking ability, to the incendiary bombing that burned through Tokyo, to two bombs that dropped and end a war almost overnight. A case was thus made that bombing could win a war. I am not saying it is a winning/right case, but made none the less. I stare today at Ukraine. And I ponder how little we have learned. The Russian cities today are in a belief that they can 'Coventrate' Ukraine's towns and cities without answer. I am not religious. But I 'pray' that we don't have to go to such lengths again to stop terrible tyranny, but right now, the world may need a new Harris at some point in the future. The world has hopes that we never were to see decimation of civilian areas in a way that Harris carried out his work. Hope, burns low right now. The Russians today have to be stopped, and that will not happen with fine words, civilities and people wringing their hands. So very many things in the past 5 years have been an echo of 35-40. History will repeat unless we learn from it.... (Thanks for your reply and in info, I appreciate it!)
Well well. I have to call out this Mosquito rubbish. Lets consider that bomber command already had a heavy force then you suggest replacing that with Mozzies. This requires 2 more engines and 2 more pilots at least to achieve the same level of ordinance. The engines are a problem for a start, the time and resource to change tack to this plan is issue number 2 and the biggest issue is how many more pilots you would need. Pilots do not grow on trees. It takes a lot of time to train pilots. Many navigators and gunners in Lancs signed to be pilots but got redirected as there is not the time or resources to train them. I know its nice to imagine this sort of theory but at the time your suggestion would be quite ludicrous and impractical. 5th paragraph though. Yes. Extremely brave and courageous men flew in bomber command and their lack of recognition for years was a bloody disgrace. I have nothing but admiration for them, its hard to imagine how they kept going.
What is bloody wrong with you people Engines were good enough to get to 287 mph with 14000 lbs on board The Guns for the plane were adequate for the distances the enemy was coming at them at Night lack of Armour the Tail Gunner had a steel door at his back And Flt Sgt Tom MacLean got more than 9 kills as a tail gunner and preferred the 4x.303 with the faster Rate of Fire than the heavier rounds and slower rate of fire with the Rose Rice Turret .
I do so appreciate the length you and your research go to bring us these stories!! Absolutely mind blowing every time, thankyou for your professionalism.
Once again Greg does not disappoint, his knowledge of WW2 aircraft sets him apart from every other wannabee! Really looking forward to part II! For anyone interested, the Douglas DB-7 "Boston" (AH 435) at 29:37 is pictured pre-delivery at Floyd Bennett Field, Long Island, New York in 1941. It was apparently part of a batch originally ordered by France but sent to North Africa where it was most likely assigned to the South African Air Force. The SAAF, as part of the famous Desert Air Force, provided most of the bombers and all of the Bostons during the North Africa Campaign. Fun fact: SAAF used the same insignia (roundels and fin flashes) as the RAF and other Commonwealth air forces, but in orange instead of the red (often they did not bother with the colour change!).
My friend's dad used to work late so that he could pick us up after air cadets. While we waited for stragglers he would relate personal stories, many of which revolved around his experiences in the Lancaster. It was years later that I came to understand just how special his flying career was. After two tours as a Lancaster pilot performing night raids against Germany, he became a Pathfinder pilot flying Lancaster's, (mainly) Boston's and rarely Mosquitos. His fave was the Boston - by far but he noted that the Lanc. Was a close second, that could be thrown around like a fighter, when called upon. He did not have kind words for the Mossie. After pathfinders, he moved on to 617 squadron and performed during some noteworthy missions including pendulum raids to Russia, supply mission(s?) to the Jewish combatants during the Warsaw uprising, and the Tirpitz raids. He spoke of the Lancasters frequently being so overloaded that they
Another great, informative video. I really appreciate how you note that making an airplane out to have a better reputation than its abilities can detract from the crew's skill, bravery and clever use of the airplane as you so rightly put it.
@@kenneth9874 Spit and Hurricane first Combat 08 Oct 1939 P38 Early 43 P47 April 43 P51B Dec 43 So that is 40 months before the P38 44 mths before the P 47 and 57mths before the P51B The US had a lot of catching up to do. And never made it.
@@jacktattislol, they more than made it, the P47's destroyed as many aircraft in 2 years as the spitfire did in 5 and over enemy territory to boot....
@@kenneth9874 Hey France was enemy territory Holland Belgium Italy Libya Malta Sicily, Tripoli The Lebanon and don't forget more countries used the Spitfire and their kills count.
I’m not a technically aware guy with regard to aircraft, really just have a love of them from an early age. Greg, with the way you present your aircraft videos along with your studies and information brought in these subjects you make it thoroughly interesting and easily understood to those interested with historical aircraft. Many thanks again for your posts. Cheers.
Hi Greg. Great video. Thank you. I am hoping that in the second video you comment on the choice of a single pilot, compared to two pilots in most American bombers as I've always found that strange. All the best.
Hopefully Greg won't mind my linking this, by if anyone is interested in seeing what the typical nighttime city bombing raids Lancaster's took part in look like (as opposed to the specialized raids everyone knows of) I'm doing animated time-lapses of the RAF's "Ruhr Campaign" raids that occurred from March to July 1943. It shows how the raids were planned, executed, and assessed, while also showing how the German radar-based night defense reacted. This is the type of operation the Lancasters were most usually employed on, at least as far as 1943 was concerned --> th-cam.com/video/8pqJquoOkv8/w-d-xo.html
You presented some great info on aerodynamics that, to non-pilots, was fascinating. This is such a great video on an aircraft that so often has been mis-characterized through history.
28:14 turret update: a quick google suggests with might be "Lancaster JB456 with Bristol Type 17 turret" as seen on World War Photos dot info. Their cropped photo looks very much like the one above, including the small white patch just aft of the port roundel
Very well layed out and interesting video......as a life long lancaster nut (grandad was a bomb-aimer) i can't say there is anything in this that i wasn't already aware of.....but i am now eagerly awaiting the other videos in this series
Excellent in depth information on one of my favourite airplanes. Thanks for taking us off the beaten track of Upkeep, Grand Slam, Tallboys and 617 squadron into more of the often overlooked characteristics and history. Well done!
I just finished Leo McInstry's "Lancaster," what an amazing read; I had a hard time putting it down. I've not read many historical books regarding a single plane, and fewer at that scale, but his "Spitfire" book is on order now (along w Ed Jablonski's "Flying Fortress," a book I had growing up but lost on the way). Thank you very much for the recommendation, the perspectives on the aircraft, the interviews and supporting operator's quotes, Bomber Command, and of course, Harris, have really opened a new door of exploration for me. Regarding the ventral turret, its removal seems to have made more sense than not. The sneak attacks using 'Schrage Musik' upward facing cannon were devastating, but the violent maneuvering by the Lancaster would seem to have been the best defensive measure. Early visual detection using the 20 deg fov would have been next to impossible, especially learning how difficult it was for the tail gunner to detect incoming night fighters - and that was an assigned duty for him. Spotting a night fighter via the ventral turret seems unlikely. I think some Lancaster pilots did periodic, random, jinking maneuvers (that startled the crew) to throw off the aim of an upward shooting enemy craft, but not knowing for certain whether or not there actually was a fighter there probably relied mostly on good fortune, and impossible, of course, to do during the bombing run. At least one crew member thought it may have provided some deterrence because if a night fighter noticed a Lancaster weaving, it may have indicated to the night fighter he had been detected, and perhaps he would move to another target and try again. It must have been horrifying to see a fellow bomber simply exploding in mid-air for no immediately known reason.
I've also read an advantage of twin-tailed planes was that the tails didn't need to be as tall as a single tail would have to be, making for easier hanger storage.
That was the reason for the Lockheed Constellation tail. The airlines might not buy them if they had to build new hangers. Lockheed started using twin rudders on the Electra to place the rudders in the engine slip stream on the twin engine plane.
Relating to ventral turrets on Lancasters, what they really needed was a good lookout window. Because flying at night and not in formation, a Lancaster’s best defence was evasive action. A flush window and a simple .50 mount was a modification adopted by some units.
I've thought about this, and I feel the best option would have been a device to passively detect the radar units of night fighters, if such a thing were possible.
@@neilpemberton5523 Possible, as both sides used such devices. But passive receivers such as the Serrate unit used by the RAF had limited accuracy and could not indicate range, so would have caused numerous false alerts. The Germans also used frequency switches to reduce their effectiveness. The best answer turned out to be the Fishpond modification of the H2S navigation radar, which allowed it to detect aircraft below the bomber.
@@emmanuelgustin7851 I read somewhere* that the Luftwaffe had detectors for H2S signals which could track bomber streams, and put fighters onto bombers. The term 'flammen' was used. H2S use was eventually prohibited along with 'Monica', tail-mounted radar. *Try RV Jones.
@@brucewilliams1892 The account in RV Jones’ autobiography is a bit too condensed. There was indeed a brief panic and a serious row in Bomber Command when it was discovered that the German Naxos detector could guide fighters to the bomber stream. But when it was evaluated that Naxos was too inaccurate to locate individual aircraft, and losses had indeed dropped with the introduction of H2S and Fishpond, the use of H2S was continued. The discipline in its use was improved so as not to give the Germans too early warning. Monica was another matter. The “Flensburg” detector was accurate enough to put a German night fighter within visual range, so Monica was indeed removed.
I was taught that there are three regions of stability while in a bank in reference to bank angle. A shallow bank is a bank angle that when input pressure is released it will naturally return to the trim setting. A medium bank is a bank angle that will continue when input pressure is released. A steep bank is a bank angle that will increase when input pressure is released. I enjoyed slipping a plane in for a crosswind landing. I never understood the roll of dihedral (I'm still going to have to study on that some) except in kites. I always thought in terms of spilling air out from under the "high" side of the kite in order to return it to some level of equalibrium, (or some level of level) [see what I did there with level?] Also, it seems to me that dihedral and high-wings provide what appears to be pendulum like stability.
@Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles - this was a great video. FWIW, I agree about telling it like it was and not exaggerating the (any) plane’s capabilities. The in-depth way you explain things really puts all the aircraft in proper perspective. Thank you for that. Did you ever do a video explaining all the various markings on WWII allied aircraft? Aside from the roundels, some of these planes had a lot of letters, numbers, tail symbols, stripes, colored tails and/or noses, et cetera, all indicating something. Seems like the late war USAAF bombers in the ETA were the most “colorful”. What did it all mean? Any-who, if you did a video on this, tell me which one as I haven’t seen it yet. If not, hey, it’s an idea...thanks again and keep up the good work.
My father painted some of those stripes. He came back in with a friend after a day out. At the gate they were grabbed and told to paint vertical white stripes round the tails of some aircraft. He obeyed the silly order and in the morning Normandy was invaded. You see, he told me, these Americans shoot at everything, same as our ships. The stripes were to let them identify before any aircraft recognition was done.
@@20chocsaday yep, invasion stripes. On anything that flew except heavy bombers. Those I know about. The reason for those was the sheer number of allied aircraft concentrated in the Normandy would overwhelm the IFF system. Visual backup. No stripes...shoot it down. IIRC, this was based upon an RAF study and approved by ACM Leigh-Mallory. Cool story and I assume your dad was in the RAF? You must be proud of him. My late dad was US Army in the PTO, mainly in and around the Philippines.
This will be covered in the next video, but some of the radars like H2S guided Luftwaffe night fighters (with correct receivers) right onto the bomber. Devices like Gee and Oboe which were navigation beams, told the Germans what the target was, which is almost as bad because they would concentrate there. But the devices improved accuracy so...
And again Greg doesn't disappoint!!!! Great job Greg very good video. I enjoyed every minute and will watch this one many times in the future Im sure. I can imagine the amount of research and time required to make this video and I truly appreciate every video you have made. Keep up the fantastic work. Thank you.
I am currently reading the book "Duel under the Stars" by a German ME-110 Night Fighter Pilot. In all his air battle accounts he seems to almost exclusively describe his planned attacks occurring from below the British bombers. Which makes me wonder how busy the top turret gunners in the Lancasters actually were....
For that reason Victoria Cross recipient Leonard Cheshire had his Group's nose and dorsal turrets removed to reduce weight and drag for a little more speed.
Actually 405 Sqn had a hole cut in the floor and the Dorsal Turret was eliminated and that gunner with safety straps Oxy connection for a heated flying suit He would spot the plane coming in from below and alert the Pilot. Who would immediately throttled back and lowered 10 degrees of flap when the enemy overshot and then at a critical moment would shove the Yoke fully forward putting the huge bomber in a dive right on top of the German Fighter Sometimes they hit and sometimes the German got away Whatever they never came back
I appreciate comparisons to the B-17, but I'm more curious how the Lancaster compared to the B-24, which was closer in time of development to the Lancaster, had similar speed, and followed a closer planform.
Greg, very good video and very informative for those of us old dudes who follow aircraft of this time. Thanks for all the research you must have put in to make this.
22:59 - B-17 from my tail gunner Dad's bomber group: 384 Heavy, Grafton Underwood - Triangle P - Assigned to a different squadron though. Use this search string for more info: _B-17G 44-8007_ "44-8007 was equipped with a PFF (RADAR) system in place of the Ball Turret. Therefore, it did not have a Ball Turret Gunner assigned on any missions."
@@richardvernon317 Wait, ground mapping?? Need to check that out, thanks for the reference! And of course equal thanks @Cowboy Bob for mentioning that system - never knew about the automated ball turrets, that stuff is really super cool - hard to imagine any such turrets could lead their targets in a meaningful way, but I guess being smart always meant to find those amazing shortcuts that did 85% of the functionality while taking 15% of the effort of the perfect solution...
@@decnet100 There wa no automatic turret on the B-17. H2X was a bombing system loosely based on the British H2S, but fitted with a bomb aiming system that would fly the aircraft via the Autopilot and release the bombs like the Norden Bombsight would. Yes the lead aircraft would bomb by radar based on an aiming mark plotted on the CRT display by the bomb aimer or navigator and the rest of the formation would toggle bomb with him. The Radar scanner was in a retractable radome located where the ventral Ball turret was normally mounted. Only 4 Squadrons of Lancaster's did get an auto gun laying radar for the rear turret from September 1944 onwards, but they were really not that reliable and were more useful for early warning that somebody was coming up from behind.
@@richardvernon317 Ah that makes sense then... I figured it was an entirely different radar system to the H2X/S, so I guess that would make the plane he described with the radar in the ball turret the lead plane then?
Great video, thank you. The late war Lancasters were fitted with a single 303 machine gun in the ventral position, operated by a gunner laying on his stomach, in an attempt to foil the devastating German night fighter attacks from underneath the rear of the Lanc. One big difference between US doctrine and UK was that the US valued the lives of its servicemen; no attempt was made to enlarge the Lancaster's front escape hatch so that a crewman could exit wearing a parachute, and it was not until the end of the war that defensive armament was increased. The Lancaster should have been fitted with high-altitude Merlins years before it was carried out in the Lincoln, but I guess life was cheap.
Yup, and only armour for the pilot (officer)… The combat reports from the Luftwaffe night fighter pilots are also very clear: a quick swoop in from underneath, schräge Musik to the root of the wing, Abschuß, often several Lancasters in quick succession.
RAF pilots were not always officers. I believe the single ventral gun was fitted to some RCAF Lancasters but it wasn’t common. The use of Fishpond reduced losses from night fighters approaching from below.
@@Gloomendoom the officer part wasn’t the point, lack of armour for the rest of the crew was :) On top of that the 0.303 calibre had inadequate range compared to the German guns, they could literally attack with impunity. Alas, it was a choice, just like the Japanese prioritised range over protection; and in the end only fighters (the Mustang by day, the Mosquito by night) turned the tide
@@chrhald Those .303 were only firing to a max of 400 mtrs at times 100 mtrs More than enough to throw of their aim . And the Spitfire and Hurricane shot down more than your Mustang Gee the Spitfire from Oct 39 to 1945 P51 Dec43 to May45
I have no way of knowing for sure since I lack flying experience, but I imagine any bottom turret would be useless at night, especially if the towns below were blacked out, which they tended to be, it would be nearly impossible to find and track an enemy fighter against such a dark background, at least at night there are some stars and maybe even a sliver of moon to serve as a lighter backdrop for upper and side mounted turrets
I expect a central turret would have been far from useless, if it was a complete, Sperry style unit as in the B-17 and B-24 where the crewman was inside and it was retractable into the fuselage for takeoff/landing. Clouds below the bomber were frequent, so any sort of light such as moonlight from above, burning buildings below, searchlights, and so on would provide illumination for that ventral turret gunner. The German Wild Sau (single engined fighters) that flew at night sought to use such light to find and attack the Allied bombers as they lacked their own radar. As with the tail turret, ventral turret gunners may have been provided radar, but without the turret or the crewman, the RAF never sought a radar for ventral protection, AFAIK. Greg hasn't mentioned it yet, but the standard German nightfighters, Bf-110 and Ju-88, were fitted with radar and cannons mounted behind the pilot firing at a 70-degree angle ahead and mostly above the fighter. Standard practice was to with your way into a firing position below the Lancaster, aim for the wing roots (not the bomb bay!), and open fire. As the bomber would break up in flight, the nightfighters would dive away to safety. This went on for many months with impunity, the RAF codenaming the mysterious phenomenon "Scarecrow." Eventually, a German nightfighters with the oblique cannons ("schragemusik") was captured, and the bomber crews and Mosquito escorts began to implement countermeasures.
I think another major problem with the periscope-aimed lower turret was vertigo induced airsickness. That was a big reason why they were deleted from the B-25. I'm pretty sure it was also a factor on the Lanc. You can't shoot down the bad guys if you're puking your guts out all the time.
euh..after the bombing at night over germany..these bombers returned over occupied Holland...at dawn...and things got visible from a morning sun horizon creeping from the east.. Both the lanc as a target from normal german fighters (not nightfighters perse)..as for the lanc to detect trailing german fighters..
At the time the decision was made to remove the Ventral turret, there were plans to put something else in its place. Greg will most definitely covering said item in a future video. When the USAAF fitted their own version of said device, it was located were the Ball Turret was.
@@amerigo88 The Schragemusik attacks were aimed at a wing somewhere between the two engines. The reason for this was there was a fuel tank there. Mosquito nightfighter escort support started well before the Schragemusik installation was known about. However, the first Mosquito Nightfighters given to Bomber Command were a bunch of clapped out NF Mk II's fitted with AI. Mk IV radars and Serrate radar homers. AI Mk IV was next to useless in Chaff, The Switch to the longer Wavelength SN2 radars in the German Nightfighters made Serrate useless and the Merlins in the Mosquitos were well worn out and caused a large number of engine failures. Harris had been proposing Mosquito nightfighter support for the bombers as early as 1942 but it wasn;t until late 1944 that he got any major numbers of the latest version of the aircraft with a decent centimetric radar. AGLT did not become operational until late 1944 and very few aircraft (4 squadrons worth) were fitted with it. Schragemusik became operational on 17th August 1943 (first kill with it was during the Peenemunde raid) but only around 1/3 of the German Nightfighter force was ever equipped with it and it wasn't an easy bit of equipment to use (though in the hands of an expert pilot, he could really rack up the kills if he got into the heart of the Bomber Stream).
an elderly gentleman I know was in the Royal Australian Air Force and was seconded to Britain during WW2 and served on Lancasters as a radio operator. after many close calls and crash landings, he survived 30 bombing missions. He's an interesting fellow to talk to, still fit and healthy and about to celebrate his 100th birthday
Enjoy them while you can
@@benjamincristofani920 sadly he died two months ago
I did not expect the B-17's, "Oh my god Becky tail" That was a fantastic line in a wonderfully educational video. Thanks for your content!
"Probably Sir Mix-A-Lot's favorite bomber" is definitely going in my long-term memory! XD
Don't get the reference there.
You are going to love this:
Speaking of United States style bomb-bay bomb-racks;
When I was in the Airforce [81 to 85] there was an Airforce publication "TAC ATTACK" and there was always a good story from the past and often from WW Twice.
One such story goes like this. A B25 Mitchell bomber was on a mission to bomb the Mitsubishi Aircraft factory. A 250 pound bomb failed to release and hung up on the rack. It had fallen out of position and could not be secured. So, according to SOP of the day, they exited the area with bomb-bay doors open in the hope that the bomb would fall free at some point and not smash through the doors. Occasionally the plane was "shaken" by the pilot in the hopes of encouraging gravity to take the bomb away. (this causes drag and they fell behind their squadron mates) At some point the bomb fell free, they closed the bomb-bay doors, and got out of Dodge.
Foward to after the war when the USAAF was researching how effective they were as according to enemy records. They came across an obscure little footnote of a factoid.
On the particular date of that bomb raid on the Mitsubishi Factory, it was reported that a lone B25 Bomber dropped a single bomb on the Mitsubishi Headquarters' building that was located some distance from the factory.
So it was that after that B-25 bombed the factory, they dropped one on the headquarters for good measure!
It sounds like that method was particularly accurate. The Japanese must have suspected the Americans could pinpoint bomb targets if they wanted.
That's making some lemonade by accident.
My late father was in the AIF, or Australian Imperial Forces based in New Guinea during WW2. He was a Lance Corporal but his particular designation was a Master Layer, or aircraft identifier in the anti-aircraft unit! Their unit, shot down quite a number of Mitsubishi bombers & various Japanese planes during their years based up there! So your boys did their job as our boys did! My dad knew a number of American pilots & crews during this terrible time & spoke very highly of them! 🇺🇸🤝🇦🇺👍🏼 “Lest We Forget”… 😢
A GREAT STORY!
B17s on a raid on Germany missed their target, but (unknowingly) hit the one and only factory which manufactured fuel for the Me 163 Komet. After that, the Komet was reliant on pre-existing fuel stocks.
@@raypurchase801 those whacky bomber crews
Ok I am really blown away ! i never put the wing location together with single or twin tail configuration. I am suddenly going to be looking at every plane thru different eyes. Great stuff Greg easily the best researched channel I have come across and I follow hundreds of people many of those weapons related. So you are in impressive company in my books .
Thanks ch. I appreciate your kind words.
I read your comment BEFORE he even came to that point and I was still amazed at how much I got out of that section. Great! I second your compliments.
Pretty sure Greg is a private pilot, so he has incentives to learn about some of these aerodynamics issues. Plus he is just really, really thorough.
@@amerigo88 Greg is a 777 pilot if I remember correctly
Calling Mark Felton... Still looking for that squadron of all black Lancasters... It's only been found in your imagination. 😂
I NEVER thought I’d hear Sir Mixalot mentioned in a discussion of WWII aircraft. Well played.
Hey Greg. You made my day today. It is my grandfather's 102nd birthday today. He would have loved your channel. The Lancaster was his favorite plane by far. What a nice coincidence that you posted a video of the Lanc on his birthday. Thanks for all your hard work and thanks for bringing back some memories of my much missed grandpa.
It sounds like everyone who met him probably misses him. I appreciate your comment.
My father flew more than 60 missions over occupied Europe in a Lancaster Pathfinder from 1942 to 1944. Thankfully, he and his crew were rotated back to Canada after it was determined that they had done enough for the RCAF with the war obviously moving to its inevitable conclusion. On more than one occasion, their Lancaster brought them back after raids where the damage from flak or German fighters might have doomed a different plane to crashing before reaching England. We who came after them owe them so much. R.I.P. Wilfred G. Young D.F.C.
Big fan of your work. You don't go for flash, you go with facts. Fact based learning is preferred over flash. Thank you
I appreciate the attention Greg pays to detail. So, I'm an engineer. I don't design aircraft, I do electrical "stuff". However I do believe the key to almost everything in our society working vs not is attention to very small details as observed in the broad picture. Many other channels and many historians don't pay attention to these details but they are critical, and I appreciate the attention Greg pays to them.
all what i know is Ive been privileged to see 2 Lancaster's flying together . This was when the Canadian one come across the pond ... What a sight
Me too, saw them overflying Dunsfold, fabulous sight.
Indeed. I saw them both fly overhead from my front doorstep at Southend
I’ve seen the Canadian Lanc often and have been in it a couple of times. The plane is lovingly cared for and flies often.
I saw it 3 times this summer, does a turn directly over my house...im starting to recognise the sound of the merlins and run outside lol
@@noregertsracing6585 they sound great don’t they.
One of my uncles did two tours as a rear gunner on Lancs. While he would not talk much about it in general he did say that for the best view he had taken out the centre panels on his turret to improve visibility which also gave no reflections which might have caused confusion but it made things 'bloody cold'. He also said that being in an aircraft that corkscrewed to avoid a fighter was very frighting, apparently his crew had agreed that they would not open fire if they saw a fighter unless there was no other option as four or even 6 303's were not much cop against canons. He also mentioned that on more than one occasion he had seen what was left of rear gunners being washed out of the remains of their turrets with hosepipes after the aircraft had returned from a raid.
To shoot or not to shoot? It is not always appreciated that the core function of the air gunner was not to shoot down the enemy but to preserve his own aeroplane - which are not quite the same things. The very fact of operating in the dark provided a degree of, what we are now pleased to call, ‘stealth’. If a gunner saw an enemy aeroplane he had two options, engage or evade - and the ‘corkscrew manoeuvre’ does
appear to have been reasonably effective in throwing off a night
fighter. On the other hand many crews maintained that if you opened
fire first enemy fighters tended to break off and look for easier meat.
This sort of conjecture was difficult to verify, of course. What one
needed to know was whether the crews that had failed to return had
been runners or fighters - and there was no way to establish that with
any confidence. In late 1943 a comparative analysis of the records of
Nos 1 and 5 Gps was carried out and this concluded that 5 Gp’s
aggressive ‘shoot first’ policy had increased the risk of attack and,
worse, had resulted in an increase in the number of cases of gunners
firing on other bombers.3
Nevertheless, while appropriate advice was offered, it was difficult
to lay down the law in these circumstances, because, once a night
bomber had disappeared into the darkness, despite the fact that there
would have been several hundred others involved, each crew was
effectively operating in isolation as an independent entity and it
conducted its business as it saw fit. Several gunners were credited
with a number of ‘kills’, of course, but I suspect that many more went
through the war without ever firing their guns in anger.
page 70
ROYAL AIR FORCE HISTORICAL SOCIETY JOURNAL 45 on line
@@nickdanger3802 Sgt TJ McLeans policy was shoot first ask questions later One of the best tail gunners in the RAF
Ah, every day is a day closer to a video on that beautiful A-26.
Absolutely love these technical descriptions over the tired "sentimental" narratives.
A great story and I appreciate your unbiased views and opinions .. well done!
I hope we get a video about the B-24 at some point, because I think it's the most understated of the heavy bombers.
14:10. Thank you Greg for the shout-out for the Short Sterling.
Also I remember in Paul Brickhill's novel.....
"On June 1, Avro experts fitted new automatic pilots in the Lancasters for the D-Day operation, and Nicky Knilans at last found out why his much-cursed "R-Roger" flew like a lump of lead. They found it needed longer elevator cables than the others, inspected to find out why and discovered that the elevators had been put on upside down at the factory.".
I worked with a former RAF wireless operator who had also flown in Halifaxes and he said he preferred them to the Lancaster as he said the Halifax was easier to get out of in a hurry!
Here in Australia there is a beautiful Avro Lancaster ; “G for George” in the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. My dad was an Australian WW2 veteran. Although he is in the AIF, army, heavy anti-aircraft unit, based mostly in New Guinea, he loved aeroplanes generally! As a child in the early 70’s he took me to Canberra to see “G for George”. So impressed was I, that I bought a scale model & still have it! Albeit, mines a little worse for wear after more than 50 years of flying unfriendly skies!🤣👍🏼😎🇦🇺
Re: the "Oh, my, God, Becky" tail - Greg, I appreciate your videos for their in-depth coverage and your matter-of-fact delivery. But seriously, you owe me a monitor and keyboard now.
I think only about 1 out of 100 viewers even got that reference.
I got the ref too. Little wonder Sir Mix alot and the B-17 are Seattle originals.
What a fantastic; insightful and unbiased analogy. I love it when people do their homework before commenting.
Can't wait for part 2.
Excellent!!! You don't ever hear much about the Lancaster!!!
Great video. Looking forward to the next part. Back in 1993 I helped restore the BBMF Lancaster's top turret, molding replacement perspex and replacing the framing...
In 2014, I saw the British and Canadian Lancasters at an air show in Devon, England. They came very low over the headland where I was standing before turning to display along the coast. They came in with the huge bomb doors open displaying the bomb racks. They are truly intimidating machines and must have been horrible to get on the wrong side of.
I can remember being at an air show with the Air Cadets. There was a low level flypast with a B17 and a Lancaster. The Lancaster thundered along, shaking the crowds teeth, the B17 in comparison whispered along sounding more like a medium bomber.
In the land of the deluded...the man with facts is king. I can't describe how much enjoyment I get from your videos...regardless of the subject. Sure...anything aeronautic automatically gets my attention but that, too often with other channels, turns to disappointment when the details I crave are passed over for hackneyed fluff. There is something eminently satisfying by having my misconceptions destroyed by learning real information...by knowing instead of assuming. Every video of yours is a clinic. Thanks for doing what you do.
If you have not already subscribed to gregs channel and you like planes I recommend you do this man is like that history teacher you wished you had in school.
i love this channel. i listen to it almost all day long while on my tractor
I was still hanging bombs in the same type of Bomb Bay in 1968! Shackletons of RAF Coastal Command were a modification of the Lancaster, and was the first operational aircraft I worked on after joining the RAF at the start of a 27 year career.
Thanks for the detailed info Greg. I live just 5 miles from the only flying example in North America. I see it flying regularly during the year, and shall be armed with knowledge on my next visit to the Canadian Warplane Heritage.
The pics were brilliant most I have never seen and I watch the WWII shit like mad so, well done my good and faithful servent.
So good, as always, Greg! Can't wait for the next one!
Thanks Rob, I'm glad you liked it.
I love your username.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Hey Greg - excellent video as always - but it would be funny if Mark Felton made a video, picking holes in it!
excellent job as always Greg. Just on the twin tails, you are 100% regarding the stability however we were taught another reason Avro went with it was for the aircraft to be able to fit in the standard Brit hangar, the Bellman type
As with the wing span…
@@chrhald correct!
You're thinking of the Stirling.
@@PenzancePete omg, I’m such an old fart - and you are absolutely correct!
That was wingspan not height though.
My Great Uncle was a Lancaster Rear Gunner during the war, served, and actually survived two full tours, which in itself is remarkable!
To make a few clarifications about how the gunners, especially the rear gunner of Lancasters operated, at least at Night. Uncle Bill never flew a daylight mission to my knowledge, he certainly never mentioned one, and unfortunately he is no longer with us to ask.
Primarily they acted as eyes, the crews were fully aware of the disadvantages of the .303's, indeed Uncle Bill recalled that in 60 missions he only actually fired his guns once outside of test bursts. The primary role of the rear gunner was to spot the night fighter, then inform the pilot of its approach so that the pilot had the best information available to evade. Evasion was usually through hard manoeuvres which included a rapid descent, the idea being to throw the night fighter off long enough for the Lancaster to escape. Obviously the radar turrets of the late war helped with this, but on his first tour they had not been developed (he spent quite a while as an air gunnery instructor between active tours).
I found many of those photos interesting as they confirmed something that he always used to tell us about rear gunners removing much of the perspex from their turret, especially to the front.
What many do not appreciate though is how cramped those turrets are. Rear gunners in Lancasters could not wear their parachutes in the turret, not enough room, they stored them just inside the fuselage where they could reach them through the turret doors. Then, if the aircraft was burning, which it often was, so blocking their escape through the rear fuselage escape hatch they would then have to travers the turret fully to one side and bail out through those doors. I have seen the turret doors on a Lanc's rear turret, they are not very big, the gunner was wearing a heated suit, heated boots, so even a fairly small guy would have difficulty moving in there. Part of the reason for the terrifying casualty rate of the rear gunners, besides the fact they were the first target of the attacking night fighters, was it was just so difficult to get out of the damned things!
Famous story about a rear gunner who was unable to reach is parachute and jumped without it. He fell through a lot of tree branches and landed in several feet of snow and lived!
If you’d like to see a beautiful example of an Avro Lancaster, take a look on the Australian War Memorial site in Canberra, Australia! We have “G for George” on permanent display. My dad was an Australian WW2 veteran & he first took me there in the early 70’s. Your late uncle & men like him had probably the worst job during the war. I’m glad he survived & had a life. “Lest We Forget”…🇦🇺🤝🇬🇧
@@fafner1 I know the story, he jumped from 18,000 feet, rear end of the aircraft was burning, and it had taken his parachute, decided he would rather jump than burn. He COULD reach his parachute, the problem was not that he could not reach it but that the thing was on fire!
And the story has been verified. Some of his crew were captured and were able to identify him as their rear gunner rather than a spy, and German analysis of the wreckage actually found the remains of his parachute in the wreck.
The only issue I have with the story is this idea of him being treated as a spy by his captors, he was obviously wearing the kind of clothing that aircrew in non pressurised aircraft wore at the time over his obviously RAF uniform.... That part of the story makes no sense... I mean, spies are supposed to be kinda incognito right? So why insert a spy in full flight gear wearing the uniform of the RAF? I suspect that part of the story may not be correct, at least not entirely.
But the fact he jumped from 18,000 feet without a parachute and survived is verified......
@@andrewd7586 There is a flying example that is part of the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight, and I have been lucky enough to see her flying on a couple of occasions.
We all have a debt to people like your father, my Great Uncle, both my Grandfathers (one was a Royal Marine, the other a Spitfire mechanic), and so many others.
@@alganhar1 I was fortunate enough to be in London in 1990 for the 50th Anniversary of The Battle of Britain & was there for the unbelievable fly over of those stunning WW2 aircraft! I also went to the air museum which was incredible! We all owe every single one a debt we can never hope to repay. Hence we remember them, honour their memories & never forget.
A while back, when I was visiting my Mother, the Lanc from Hamilton flue over, That is a sound you won't soon forget.
Absolutely brilliant Greg. As a Brit brought up on WW2, I learnt quite a bit I didn’t know. Thank you.
Me to. My father serviced twin engine bombers as well. He told me that the plane could not carry the same weight of bombs if it had to fly further.
So I take bomb load plus fuel load equals warload.
He also told me that they took some of the armour off the Halifaxes. He wasn't precise about why, but I got the impression that it wasn't helping and it made the plane slower.
After the war and they had begun making a living for themselves they started finding some of their friends again and enjoyed each others company.
My mother never spoke about what she did, certainly not any stories. Oddly, she once brought out an old photo. Hamburg:- walls without roovs, windows without glass. Yet the rubble had been cleared from the streets.
If you ever get around to it, I would love to see a series of videos on the B-24 as well! Lots of people compare and contrast the B-24 with the B-17, and I would love to hear your take on the matter as well!
Fantastic vid Greg....I must say an opening photo seemed ironic, the crew bicycles having their rear mudguards painted white for safety while they prepare for a ten-hour night mission over Germany. War is nuts.
I was very fortunate to clamber all over a Lancaster I found in a barn in Canada (near Head Smashed In Buffalo Jump). That mainspar was indeed a problem to get over, and the rear turret was very claustrophobic. But what a superb, empirical machine.
Lol
I appreciated hearing Lancaster facts that are usually only vaguely alluded to or ignored completely.
I'm looking forward to Part 2.
Impressive work, as always. If you started this after the flap about the A-bomb raids, you pulled together a lot of material very quickly. Great work on the technical aspects, and a very well done on the photos.
Thanks for the technical disquisition that is understandable from us with a modest knowledge if aerodynamic engineering but totally enthusiastic about the topic.
These are the best and most informative aviation related vids uploaded on YT by a country mile.
This vid was brilliant. Learnt so much I had no idea of. I've seen the British Battle of Britain Memorial Flight Lancaster a few times (the first time flying into a setting a sun as it flew over my house), and it is an awesome sight to see in the air. There was actually a Lancaster factory not far from where I grew up, and the grandmother of someone I went to school with had actually worked there during the war. Happy someone has decided to make such an in depth vid therefore.
Nice work as usual Greg. It's a welcome breath of fresh air to have a presentation that just looks at facts re the (immeasurable) British contribution in WWII, rather than the usual heroic tales of British superweapons. Thus the way will be cleared to see the reality: Brits fighting alone, stuck with a war they did not want, understandably ill-prepared, but nevertheless doing the real dirty work at a time when it was not clear if or how victory could be achieved.
Greg, Great video, as usual. Looking forward to part 2. It's about time we had a balanced analysis of this great bomber. Thanks
Thanks James. I am trying to keep all this stuff balanced. Too many videos ignore the problems these crews had to deal with. It's not just the Lancaster, the P-47, P38 and other had some issues which I talked about as well. Yet somehow, the Lancaster is treated like the Queen, somehow above criticism.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Everyone can see you are being fair, there's just always going to be fanboys on some subject (myself included). Plz keep up the good work, your vids are awesome!
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Those UK blokes feel a bit overshadowed by us Yanks when it especially when it comes to WWII, in my observation. It is the definitive event that cleared away any argument over the preeminent world power…at least between the two. Obviously there was that cold thing…
@@nivlacyevips Thanks for your patronising observation, but I can assure you that we don't feel overshadowed by anyone, and most certainly not by Yanks. We had our time but were already a shrinking power by the time WWII began. We've been around long enough to be able to deal with that fact, sad though it may be for us.
@@Soupdragon1964 *There were only two winners in WW2.... Britain was not one of them.*
Certainly when it came to aircraft technology Britain has always lagged years behind America, Germany and France... Countries that that still mass produce aircraft.
Watching your videos is always time well spent and this one is no exception. Looking forward to more. 👍👍
Excellent video, just well-presented facts, no jingoism or BS. I have been very interested in aircraft since I was a small boy, particularly WW2 when I was younger (born in 1954 - UK boys' magazines were full of WW2 material well into the 60s... 'Achtung - Spitfeuer!'), and I learnt a lot from this. Interesting photos too. I particularly like how Greg emphasises how those who worked on and fought in the aircraft had to contend with its shortcomings. A mythology has grown up around the Lanc and too often it is presented as an almost perfect aircraft (unlike, say, the Stirling, whose faults are often the first thing mentioned) and as Greg rightly says, this can severely diminish the enormous contributions of ground and flight crews. This is what you want from a history channel.
Watch Greg, listen to him certainly, but do your own research it is out there, and do a comparison You might be surprised
11:34 sir mixalots favorite bomber😂 good one. and of course, and as expected from the autor, another very comprehensive video. thanks a lot.
Great video. FYI Lancaster wing dihedral is quoted as “outer plane, on datum: 7 degrees and outer plane, on top of rear spar: 5 degrees 19 minutes”.
Great stuff Greg! Your channel is an absolute must for every *serious* ww2 aircraft buff!
Amazing, well thought out and easy to understand presentation Greg. Thanks so much, from Australia 🇦🇺
Really thorough and easy to understand video again, Greg. Thanks!
Thank you, Greg! Please consider including the Bristol Hercules powered Mark II in a future video.
I liked the discussion of dihedral, which clarified the behavior I saw in the flying models I built as a kid. I knew the basics of dihedral and its effect and built planes with varying dihedral. Greg’s explanation was better than the information I had at the time.
Hi Greg, great video, looking forward to the rest. I have yet to be disappointed, they all beat anything on TV, that's why I am A patreon supporter. thank you
A brilliant analysis Greg thank you for your unbiased input to this question. Cheers from the UK
Awesome video as always. Thanks, Greg!
Regarding the labels of "high wing" vs. "mid wing" vs "low wing" I think a better technical description starts with noting the thrust line as a datum, and those terms are relative to their locations as compared to the thrust line. Then the horizontal stab is also in a position relative to the thrust line and is often located above the wing centerline (ignoring the airfoil shape for the moment) to avoid the downdraft from the generation of lift that would give an upward pitching moment that varies with speed.
Depending on the desired flight characteristics and role, you'd locate the wing and stab accordingly relative to the thrust line. I suppose other datums could be selected - the wing centerline - but given the forward thrust vector that seems a good choice and its opposed by the wing's drag component - hence the importance of the wing above or below the thrust line and the amount of leverage (the moment arm) it generates.
Just my two cents worth. Fact check, please?
You are a great engineering TH-camr. One of the best.
Absolutely love the video. Especially interested in the discussion of the turrets. The Lancaster is oft criticized for being less defensible than American bombers, having less armament etc. Your comment about their usefulness in night operations got me thinking. I'd love to hear more about this topic.
I always wondered why the front turret wasn’t removed altogether and replaced with a streamlined nose as was done with the Halifax.
Let's see if the oft-forgotten Lancaster II variant gets a mention. (That one was powered by four Hercules radial engines and came standard with bulged bomb bay doors allowing carriage of the 8,000-lb HC bomb.)
@Glen Towler Freeman Dyson proposed that, IIRC. It wasn't just about speed, but also loss of fewer crew as it was surmised that most lost were due to flak, accidents or nightfighters they never saw coming, with more guns not likely to help with any of those scenarios. The problem was the Lancaster would still have been vulnerable as it would still have been slow, and then morale of crew that felt defenceless would have been so poor there would have been a mutiny. Dyson was correct in logical terms, but ignored the human element.
The reverse is true - the chances of a German fighter pilot being shot down by guns on a B17 was low, but all those tracers flying around had a an effect on willingness to press home attacks. But the loss rate on unescorted raids showed the real killer of fighter attacks was escorts.
@@primmakinsofis614 people note it was slower, but it did have a bilges bay and more drag. It very often retained its FN. 64 turret as the bulged bay was incompatible with H2S, but you still see photos of ones with just a fairing there. You'd think a Preston - Green would be a good option there, if just as a look out post.
@Glen Towler the Free French removed the mid-upper. I presume speed, but maybe also a relative lack of crew.
Another outstanding video from Greg.
Always enjoy the little side-facts your videos contain - ever since I was a kid browsing through "history of aviation"-type books (you know the kind - lots of images of cool planes, combined with the least amount of technical explanation they could get away with), I was a believer of the "dihedral wings always return the plane to level" myth, as in the wings would automatically generate correcting momentum in the roll orientation. Thinking of it today, should have been obvious that there is nothing to it in that regard (obviously there is no change in roll momentum from the orientation of the plane relative to the horizon), but it's one of those concepts that sounded good and is sort-of-halfway-in-a-roundabout-way-semi-correct, as it does help stability; but I'm very glad you cleared up the whole thing - before your vid, the wings of those C-17/IL-76 you showed made zero sense to me, I actually thought they flex upwards enough in flight to turn dihedral again...
Actually there are 5 wing to fuselage attachments (for mono-wing aircraft.). Low wing, Mid wing, high wing, shoulder wing and parasol wing. On shoulder wing (like the B-24 (just look at a picture taken fro above the plane.)) and parasol wing (think of the PBY Catalina) can have part, or all, of their wing with Anhedral! Some planes have the "Gull Wing" where they have a short dihedral out to their twin engines and then either no dihedral, nor anhedral (B-25, which is a mid wing), or a slight anhedral.... (The F4U Corsair, and the Ju-87 have inverted gull wings).
Hello Greg, we have had never saw or talked. I would like to thank you for your channel. It is incredible source of detailed and nicely explained knowledge about planes and engineering in general. I am really impressed by you work. And second thing, curse on you. Every time I am under impression that I know something about something, I find out that I have no idea.
I don't like it, but please continue. It hurts my pride but you making me smarter person.
Great work.
Regards from Prague.
I was already going to give the video a like, but the combination of descriptions of the B-17's tail at the 11:30 mark had me bust out laughing.
I'll bet only 1 out of 5 get that reference.
Indeed Greg. Men more then airplanes fought the war, no matter if they were designing, building, flying or maintaing them! As usual a great video, going to me a great Lancaster mini serie. Thanks!
The Lanc is regarded with great warmth. My biggest bugbear about the plane was within bounds of its limitations. The escape hatch was a notorious problem, and - well I will speak of its price in a moment. Always at the heart of the problem with the Brits - was being limited in many regards which people often overlook. It went into the war in an unready state across the board, and in many areas a case of limitations and catching up is almost always visible. 303s, engines, lack of armour.
The Lanc was able to take a great bombload a long way. Its was smaller than the other heavies (so its war cost to make was somewhat lower..) - and IIRC correctly - the flight support and crew requirements has made it the most heavily supported plane in British history (Factory staffing, ground crew - flight crew). An interesting side point on engines was that another aircraft that was a good plane in principle suffered like the Manchester. The Westland Whirlwind which used a pair of RR Peregrins - suffered from the lack of development, and production time and units available. So it was a bit off that RR then stuck two together in an X config, but that is for some other time.
In all cases, an argument existed by Mosquito time frames about the heavies. The Mozzie could take the 4000lb load to Berlin as the B17 often carried, and could do so in half the time, and with an enormously lower resource and crew cost, and a much lower loss rate. It could not match Lancaster loads, but that is a side point.
A note on American airmen, and their planes. I'm British. When I travel in the UK, to places that are near to where their airfields used to be, pubs nearby sometimes retain history. One that I had a few pints in has plaques on it's walls. Those plaques are in memory of US airmen who in 43 flew daylight missions with a 0.5 mission survival rate and suffered terrible losses. Etched into brass - pictures of B17's - and crews. Its a debt I am always mindful of, as young Americans came here in the fight for freedom, climbed about their planes facing by statistics certain death - in the fight that today has provided the very freedom I am so very fortunate to be a very thankful beneficiary. That debt can never be repaid, and no words I can ever write can thank them and their loved ones for the gift their gigantic price rendered. In lighter conversation, I would always plump in the Lanc vs B17 pubtalk for a Lancaster, but I should be ever thankful to all the planes, and all the crews.
A final note, and harking back the to escape hatch. RAF bomber command lost 55,000. It took the war right to Germany, and then for a long time, Bomber command crews were treated badly, tainted by the claims made of Dresden and other missions. The Lancaster for whatever reason retained the love of the public - while the crews who flew her were mistreated. Only recently has Bomber command crews - seen a change with more reverence for their efforts. Night after night they would go into German skies, wrecking the German nations war making capacity, at enormous human cost it is fair to say on both sides. Along with Allied aircrews and planes - these missions greatly damaged, harmed, limited and havoc'd Germans ability to wage its war - and at the heart of that British effort was the Lancaster. Bomber Harris in terms of war, waged a terrible war - one which we had to fight, and we should remember with reverence the crews who did so.
Many many thanks for taking time to speak about it.
Well said , the 4th and 5th paragraphs in particular .👍
Thanks for a great post. About Bomber Harris I think more should be said. He was a difficult man for other RAF Air Marshalls to work with. When all the evidence pointed to the founding of a Pathfinder Force as the best way to improve the notoriously poor accuracy of RAF night bombing, Harris opposed it both actively and passively. The most outstanding Air Marshall the RAF had in WW2, Wilfrid Freeman, would get seemingly deliberately unhelpful communications from Harris, and would in turn reply in a brusque, borderline rude, manner. Freeman said "The only way with Butch (Harris) is to treat him roughly." Harris was a stubborn man by all accounts who hated to follow orders if he didn't agree with them. Having finally accepted he had to form the Pathfinders, Harris made the perfect choice of a tough Australian called Don Bennett to lead it, but even then he had a tendency to interfere with and undermine Bennett. Incidently, Bennett's troubled working relationship with Harris did not stop him from supporting his bosses legacy as the 'right man' for the job. Harris's most egregious act was his attempt to avoid co-ordinating the RAF bombing campaign with that of the daylight bombing USAAF in the lead up to D-Day. This undoubtedly put huge strain on his relationship with Bennett, a very efficient and determined leader, who was greatly affronted by Harris's claim that RAF night bombing was not accurate enough to co-ordinate with day bombing. Harris seems to have been motivated a great deal by revenge for Luftwaffe bombing of British cities in 1940-41. During the war a large proportion of the British public approved of this motive for bombing German cities but after the war ended Bomber Command veterans did not receive their due because of the lasting stigma of bombing civilian targets. Harris was obviously no hypocrite in this regard, but his conduct during the war did seem to indicate a desire to "get the rubble to bounce" in single-minded fashion. His stubbornness and insubordination did not help Bomber Command's post-war reputation because it was all too easy for his critics to point to them as evidence he was an indiscriminate killer. After Freeman left a supervisory role over him, Harris became harder to control by his superiors until the end of the war.
@@neilpemberton5523 Many thanks for this info. I like to think I know my stuff, and to a certain level I do, but this is next level info. Harris (I think this is my opinion rather than perhaps 'the truth') - was the absolute drIving force in making bomber command the hulk smash thing. And in that, there is indeed a lack of nuance. Harris was indeed a vengeful force, but one can argue that in fighting back against the Germans, and in delivery of hammer blows - that was to a point needed. In the video - there was a point of angry comms from Harris about poor 303 guns and lack of better defences, so I would say this shows the man did care on detail - to some degree.
The levelling of British cities and the outrage meant that I think the majority of British society was in no real mood to demand nuance. It is true that basically in the propaganda, claims were made contrary to the brutal facts. Late in the war, once victory was in sight, perhaps the mood changed, and certainly after the war people wanted to revise or change what happened because they did not like the outcome war brings.
th-cam.com/video/5ujzVqwJnB0/w-d-xo.html
The man was an absolute driving force - and we can today say we don't like his 'experiment' - but all I know is that the bombing while it did not totally break the German war machine - it devastated delivery, production, transport and operation. And provided a 'second front'. In that video link, at the end, was a .. moment of contemplation. Prior to speaking of Japan. The west went from barely being able to strike back with magnificent Blenheim boys who fought against terrible odds, all the way through to the heavies, and in our case 55,000 casualties on our side, and absolute city wrecking ability, to the incendiary bombing that burned through Tokyo, to two bombs that dropped and end a war almost overnight. A case was thus made that bombing could win a war. I am not saying it is a winning/right case, but made none the less.
I stare today at Ukraine. And I ponder how little we have learned. The Russian cities today are in a belief that they can 'Coventrate' Ukraine's towns and cities without answer. I am not religious. But I 'pray' that we don't have to go to such lengths again to stop terrible tyranny, but right now, the world may need a new Harris at some point in the future.
The world has hopes that we never were to see decimation of civilian areas in a way that Harris carried out his work. Hope, burns low right now.
The Russians today have to be stopped, and that will not happen with fine words, civilities and people wringing their hands. So very many things in the past 5 years have been an echo of 35-40. History will repeat unless we learn from it....
(Thanks for your reply and in info, I appreciate it!)
Well well. I have to call out this Mosquito rubbish. Lets consider that bomber command already had a heavy force then you suggest replacing that with Mozzies. This requires 2 more engines and 2 more pilots at least to achieve the same level of ordinance. The engines are a problem for a start, the time and resource to change tack to this plan is issue number 2 and the biggest issue is how many more pilots you would need. Pilots do not grow on trees. It takes a lot of time to train pilots. Many navigators and gunners in Lancs signed to be pilots but got redirected as there is not the time or resources to train them. I know its nice to imagine this sort of theory but at the time your suggestion would be quite ludicrous and impractical.
5th paragraph though. Yes. Extremely brave and courageous men flew in bomber command and their lack of recognition for years was a bloody disgrace. I have nothing but admiration for them, its hard to imagine how they kept going.
What is bloody wrong with you people Engines were good enough to get to 287 mph with 14000 lbs on board The Guns for the plane were adequate for the distances the enemy was coming at them at Night lack of Armour the Tail Gunner had a steel door at his back And Flt Sgt Tom MacLean got more than 9 kills as a tail gunner and preferred the 4x.303 with the faster Rate of Fire than the heavier rounds and slower rate of fire with the Rose Rice Turret .
I do so appreciate the length you and your research go to bring us these stories!! Absolutely mind blowing every time, thankyou for your professionalism.
I'm glad I wasn't partaking in a beverage when you mentioned the B-17's tail...
Once again Greg does not disappoint, his knowledge of WW2 aircraft sets him apart from every other wannabee! Really looking forward to part II! For anyone interested, the Douglas DB-7 "Boston" (AH 435) at 29:37 is pictured pre-delivery at Floyd Bennett Field, Long Island, New York in 1941. It was apparently part of a batch originally ordered by France but sent to North Africa where it was most likely assigned to the South African Air Force. The SAAF, as part of the famous Desert Air Force, provided most of the bombers and all of the Bostons during the North Africa Campaign. Fun fact: SAAF used the same insignia (roundels and fin flashes) as the RAF and other Commonwealth air forces, but in orange instead of the red (often they did not bother with the colour change!).
I hope every other wannabe does NOT ignore three WW2 tests done by RAE AFDU and Wright Field that di not agree with his findings
My friend's dad used to work late so that he could pick us up after air cadets. While we waited for stragglers he would relate personal stories, many of which revolved around his experiences in the Lancaster. It was years later that I came to understand just how special his flying career was. After two tours as a Lancaster pilot performing night raids against Germany, he became a Pathfinder pilot flying Lancaster's, (mainly) Boston's and rarely Mosquitos. His fave was the Boston - by far but he noted that the Lanc. Was a close second, that could be thrown around like a fighter, when called upon. He did not have kind words for the Mossie. After pathfinders, he moved on to 617 squadron and performed during some noteworthy missions including pendulum raids to Russia, supply mission(s?) to the Jewish combatants during the Warsaw uprising, and the Tirpitz raids. He spoke of the Lancasters frequently being so overloaded that they
Staggered into the air. His words "staggered into the air" and "quite a handful" were echoed by my uncle, who flew B29s against Japan. SAME WORDS.
Thanks so much Derek. I really enjoyed reading your post.
Well that friend would be one of the Few that did not like the Mosquito
Another great, informative video. I really appreciate how you note that making an airplane out to have a better reputation than its abilities can detract from the crew's skill, bravery and clever use of the airplane as you so rightly put it.
That’s an interesting note about the effectiveness of the A/B-26 ventral turret. I’d like to hear more about that.
A bit late in the war and the war was almost over.
@@jacktattisyeah, the Americans had already swept most of the luftwaffe from the skies over Europe.
@@kenneth9874 Spit and Hurricane first Combat 08 Oct 1939 P38 Early 43 P47 April 43 P51B Dec 43 So that is 40 months before the P38 44 mths before the P 47 and 57mths before the P51B The US had a lot of catching up to do. And never made it.
@@jacktattislol, they more than made it, the P47's destroyed as many aircraft in 2 years as the spitfire did in 5 and over enemy territory to boot....
@@kenneth9874 Hey France was enemy territory Holland Belgium Italy Libya Malta Sicily, Tripoli The Lebanon and don't forget more countries used the Spitfire and their kills count.
I’m not a technically aware guy with regard to aircraft, really just have a love of them from an early age. Greg, with the way you present your aircraft videos along with your studies and information brought in these subjects you make it thoroughly interesting and easily understood to those interested with historical aircraft. Many thanks again for your posts.
Cheers.
Hi Greg. Great video. Thank you.
I am hoping that in the second video you comment on the choice of a single pilot, compared to two pilots in most American bombers as I've always found that strange.
All the best.
Very good Greg, well done, plus great choice of pics too
Hopefully Greg won't mind my linking this, by if anyone is interested in seeing what the typical nighttime city bombing raids Lancaster's took part in look like (as opposed to the specialized raids everyone knows of) I'm doing animated time-lapses of the RAF's "Ruhr Campaign" raids that occurred from March to July 1943. It shows how the raids were planned, executed, and assessed, while also showing how the German radar-based night defense reacted. This is the type of operation the Lancasters were most usually employed on, at least as far as 1943 was concerned --> th-cam.com/video/8pqJquoOkv8/w-d-xo.html
I certainly don't mind. That's some incredible work you're doing there. I subscribed and look forward to watching all of these.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thanks for the kind words Greg!
I think it's brilliant, can't wait for more.
Subbed and watching. So far very well done.
I went and subbed.
You presented some great info on aerodynamics that, to non-pilots, was fascinating. This is such a great video on an aircraft that so often has been mis-characterized through history.
28:14 turret update: a quick google suggests with might be "Lancaster JB456 with Bristol Type 17 turret" as seen on World War Photos dot info. Their cropped photo looks very much like the one above, including the small white patch just aft of the port roundel
Very well layed out and interesting video......as a life long lancaster nut (grandad was a bomb-aimer) i can't say there is anything in this that i wasn't already aware of.....but i am now eagerly awaiting the other videos in this series
Excellent in depth information on one of my favourite airplanes. Thanks for taking us off the beaten track of Upkeep, Grand Slam, Tallboys and 617 squadron into more of the often overlooked characteristics and history. Well done!
I just finished Leo McInstry's "Lancaster," what an amazing read; I had a hard time putting it down. I've not read many historical books regarding a single plane, and fewer at that scale, but his "Spitfire" book is on order now (along w Ed Jablonski's "Flying Fortress," a book I had growing up but lost on the way). Thank you very much for the recommendation, the perspectives on the aircraft, the interviews and supporting operator's quotes, Bomber Command, and of course, Harris, have really opened a new door of exploration for me.
Regarding the ventral turret, its removal seems to have made more sense than not. The sneak attacks using 'Schrage Musik' upward facing cannon were devastating, but the violent maneuvering by the Lancaster would seem to have been the best defensive measure. Early visual detection using the 20 deg fov would have been next to impossible, especially learning how difficult it was for the tail gunner to detect incoming night fighters - and that was an assigned duty for him. Spotting a night fighter via the ventral turret seems unlikely. I think some Lancaster pilots did periodic, random, jinking maneuvers (that startled the crew) to throw off the aim of an upward shooting enemy craft, but not knowing for certain whether or not there actually was a fighter there probably relied mostly on good fortune, and impossible, of course, to do during the bombing run. At least one crew member thought it may have provided some deterrence because if a night fighter noticed a Lancaster weaving, it may have indicated to the night fighter he had been detected, and perhaps he would move to another target and try again. It must have been horrifying to see a fellow bomber simply exploding in mid-air for no immediately known reason.
I'm really glad you liked the book. Obviously I think it's excellent.
I've also read an advantage of twin-tailed planes was that the tails didn't need to be as tall as a single tail would have to be, making for easier hanger storage.
That was the reason for the Lockheed Constellation tail. The airlines might not buy them if they had to build new hangers. Lockheed started using twin rudders on the Electra to place the rudders in the engine slip stream on the twin engine plane.
Thanks Gregg. As usual, your work is detailed and facinating!
Appreciate your approach of the Lancaster.
Relating to ventral turrets on Lancasters, what they really needed was a good lookout window. Because flying at night and not in formation, a Lancaster’s best defence was evasive action. A flush window and a simple .50 mount was a modification adopted by some units.
I've thought about this, and I feel the best option would have been a device to passively detect the radar units of night fighters, if such a thing were possible.
@@neilpemberton5523 Possible, as both sides used such devices. But passive receivers such as the Serrate unit used by the RAF had limited accuracy and could not indicate range, so would have caused numerous false alerts. The Germans also used frequency switches to reduce their effectiveness. The best answer turned out to be the Fishpond modification of the H2S navigation radar, which allowed it to detect aircraft below the bomber.
@@emmanuelgustin7851 Thanks for that. I'll do some research.
@@emmanuelgustin7851 I read somewhere* that the Luftwaffe had detectors for H2S signals which could track bomber streams, and put fighters onto bombers. The term 'flammen' was used. H2S use was eventually prohibited along with 'Monica', tail-mounted radar.
*Try RV Jones.
@@brucewilliams1892 The account in RV Jones’ autobiography is a bit too condensed. There was indeed a brief panic and a serious row in Bomber Command when it was discovered that the German Naxos detector could guide fighters to the bomber stream. But when it was evaluated that Naxos was too inaccurate to locate individual aircraft, and losses had indeed dropped with the introduction of H2S and Fishpond, the use of H2S was continued. The discipline in its use was improved so as not to give the Germans too early warning.
Monica was another matter. The “Flensburg” detector was accurate enough to put a German night fighter within visual range, so Monica was indeed removed.
Ha I just sent that comment and then you name the book! Touche. I'm glad you like the book to bcos I was obsessed with the audiobook version.
I was taught that there are three regions of stability while in a bank in reference to bank angle.
A shallow bank is a bank angle that when input pressure is released it will naturally return to the trim setting.
A medium bank is a bank angle that will continue when input pressure is released.
A steep bank is a bank angle that will increase when input pressure is released.
I enjoyed slipping a plane in for a crosswind landing. I never understood the roll of dihedral (I'm still going to have to study on that some) except in kites. I always thought in terms of spilling air out from under the "high" side of the kite in order to return it to some level of equalibrium, (or some level of level) [see what I did there with level?]
Also, it seems to me that dihedral and high-wings provide what appears to be pendulum like stability.
Well done. Again. As usual. Not an aircraft with which I was very familiar, so much of this was new information. Looking forward to Part II.
@Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles - this was a great video. FWIW, I agree about telling it like it was and not exaggerating the (any) plane’s capabilities. The in-depth way you explain things really puts all the aircraft in proper perspective. Thank you for that.
Did you ever do a video explaining all the various markings on WWII allied aircraft? Aside from the roundels, some of these planes had a lot of letters, numbers, tail symbols, stripes, colored tails and/or noses, et cetera, all indicating something. Seems like the late war USAAF bombers in the ETA were the most “colorful”. What did it all mean? Any-who, if you did a video on this, tell me which one as I haven’t seen it yet. If not, hey, it’s an idea...thanks again and keep up the good work.
My father painted some of those stripes.
He came back in with a friend after a day out. At the gate they were grabbed and told to paint vertical white stripes round the tails of some aircraft. He obeyed the silly order and in the morning Normandy was invaded.
You see, he told me, these Americans shoot at everything, same as our ships. The stripes were to let them identify before any aircraft recognition was done.
@@20chocsaday yep, invasion stripes. On anything that flew except heavy bombers. Those I know about. The reason for those was the sheer number of allied aircraft concentrated in the Normandy would overwhelm the IFF system. Visual backup. No stripes...shoot it down. IIRC, this was based upon an RAF study and approved by ACM Leigh-Mallory. Cool story and I assume your dad was in the RAF? You must be proud of him. My late dad was US Army in the PTO, mainly in and around the Philippines.
Very well done, Greg! Your extra effort and attention to detail is apparent
This will be covered in the next video, but some of the radars like H2S guided Luftwaffe night fighters (with correct receivers) right onto the bomber. Devices like Gee and Oboe which were navigation beams, told the Germans what the target was, which is almost as bad because they would concentrate there. But the devices improved accuracy so...
And again Greg doesn't disappoint!!!! Great job Greg very good video. I enjoyed every minute and will watch this one many times in the future Im sure. I can imagine the amount of research and time required to make this video and I truly appreciate every video you have made. Keep up the fantastic work. Thank you.
I am currently reading the book "Duel under the Stars" by a German ME-110 Night Fighter Pilot. In all his air battle accounts he seems to almost exclusively describe his planned attacks occurring from below the British bombers. Which makes me wonder how busy the top turret gunners in the Lancasters actually were....
For that reason Victoria Cross recipient Leonard Cheshire had his Group's nose and dorsal turrets removed to reduce weight and drag for a little more speed.
Actually 405 Sqn had a hole cut in the floor and the Dorsal Turret was eliminated and that gunner with safety straps Oxy connection for a heated flying suit He would spot the plane coming in from below and alert the Pilot. Who would immediately throttled back and lowered 10 degrees of flap when the enemy overshot and then at a critical moment would shove the Yoke fully forward putting the huge bomber in a dive right on top of the German Fighter Sometimes they hit and sometimes the German got away Whatever they never came back
Have been a fan of the Lancaster since childhood, still learned new things from this video! Looking forward to part 2.
Well before that get any Brit Book on it. More Accurate and less bias.
I appreciate comparisons to the B-17, but I'm more curious how the Lancaster compared to the B-24, which was closer in time of development to the Lancaster, had similar speed, and followed a closer planform.
Greg, very good video and very informative for those of us old dudes who follow aircraft of this time. Thanks for all the research you must have put in to make this.
22:59 - B-17 from my tail gunner Dad's bomber group: 384 Heavy, Grafton Underwood - Triangle P - Assigned to a different squadron though. Use this search string for more info: _B-17G 44-8007_
"44-8007 was equipped with a PFF (RADAR) system in place of the Ball Turret. Therefore, it did not have a Ball Turret Gunner assigned on any missions."
AN/APS-15 AKA H2X or "Micky" 3cm wavelength ground mapping and bombing Radar
Would these types be used as a "bomber leader?"
@@richardvernon317 Wait, ground mapping?? Need to check that out, thanks for the reference! And of course equal thanks @Cowboy Bob for mentioning that system - never knew about the automated ball turrets, that stuff is really super cool - hard to imagine any such turrets could lead their targets in a meaningful way, but I guess being smart always meant to find those amazing shortcuts that did 85% of the functionality while taking 15% of the effort of the perfect solution...
@@decnet100 There wa no automatic turret on the B-17. H2X was a bombing system loosely based on the British H2S, but fitted with a bomb aiming system that would fly the aircraft via the Autopilot and release the bombs like the Norden Bombsight would. Yes the lead aircraft would bomb by radar based on an aiming mark plotted on the CRT display by the bomb aimer or navigator and the rest of the formation would toggle bomb with him. The Radar scanner was in a retractable radome located where the ventral Ball turret was normally mounted. Only 4 Squadrons of Lancaster's did get an auto gun laying radar for the rear turret from September 1944 onwards, but they were really not that reliable and were more useful for early warning that somebody was coming up from behind.
@@richardvernon317 Ah that makes sense then... I figured it was an entirely different radar system to the H2X/S, so I guess that would make the plane he described with the radar in the ball turret the lead plane then?
Good video Greg. I saw a couple of new photos and enjoyed the discussion about wing height and tail layout.
It* needed* the .50 cal and a larger escape hatch. Those two changes alone would have save a lot of crews and aircraft.
No not the 50s too slow a cyclic rate and the four x .303 were adequate for the distances they were firing at.
As always Greg great information on a fascinating subject. Looking forward to part two.
Great video, thank you. The late war Lancasters were fitted with a single 303 machine gun in the ventral position, operated by a gunner laying on his stomach, in an attempt to foil the devastating German night fighter attacks from underneath the rear of the Lanc. One big difference between US doctrine and UK was that the US valued the lives of its servicemen; no attempt was made to enlarge the Lancaster's front escape hatch so that a crewman could exit wearing a parachute, and it was not until the end of the war that defensive armament was increased. The Lancaster should have been fitted with high-altitude Merlins years before it was carried out in the Lincoln, but I guess life was cheap.
Yup, and only armour for the pilot (officer)… The combat reports from the Luftwaffe night fighter pilots are also very clear: a quick swoop in from underneath, schräge Musik to the root of the wing, Abschuß, often several Lancasters in quick succession.
RAF pilots were not always officers.
I believe the single ventral gun was fitted to some RCAF Lancasters but it wasn’t common. The use of Fishpond reduced losses from night fighters approaching from below.
@@Gloomendoom the officer part wasn’t the point, lack of armour for the rest of the crew was :) On top of that the 0.303 calibre had inadequate range compared to the German guns, they could literally attack with impunity. Alas, it was a choice, just like the Japanese prioritised range over protection; and in the end only fighters (the Mustang by day, the Mosquito by night) turned the tide
@@chrhald Those .303 were only firing to a max of 400 mtrs at times 100 mtrs More than enough to throw of their aim . And the Spitfire and Hurricane shot down more than your Mustang Gee the Spitfire from Oct 39 to 1945 P51 Dec43 to May45
Cheers from the Pacific West Coast of Canada.
I have no way of knowing for sure since I lack flying experience, but I imagine any bottom turret would be useless at night, especially if the towns below were blacked out, which they tended to be, it would be nearly impossible to find and track an enemy fighter against such a dark background, at least at night there are some stars and maybe even a sliver of moon to serve as a lighter backdrop for upper and side mounted turrets
I expect a central turret would have been far from useless, if it was a complete, Sperry style unit as in the B-17 and B-24 where the crewman was inside and it was retractable into the fuselage for takeoff/landing. Clouds below the bomber were frequent, so any sort of light such as moonlight from above, burning buildings below, searchlights, and so on would provide illumination for that ventral turret gunner. The German Wild Sau (single engined fighters) that flew at night sought to use such light to find and attack the Allied bombers as they lacked their own radar.
As with the tail turret, ventral turret gunners may have been provided radar, but without the turret or the crewman, the RAF never sought a radar for ventral protection, AFAIK.
Greg hasn't mentioned it yet, but the standard German nightfighters, Bf-110 and Ju-88, were fitted with radar and cannons mounted behind the pilot firing at a 70-degree angle ahead and mostly above the fighter. Standard practice was to with your way into a firing position below the Lancaster, aim for the wing roots (not the bomb bay!), and open fire. As the bomber would break up in flight, the nightfighters would dive away to safety. This went on for many months with impunity, the RAF codenaming the mysterious phenomenon "Scarecrow." Eventually, a German nightfighters with the oblique cannons ("schragemusik") was captured, and the bomber crews and Mosquito escorts began to implement countermeasures.
I think another major problem with the periscope-aimed lower turret was vertigo induced airsickness. That was a big reason why they were deleted from the B-25. I'm pretty sure it was also a factor on the Lanc. You can't shoot down the bad guys if you're puking your guts out all the time.
euh..after the bombing at night over germany..these bombers returned over occupied Holland...at dawn...and things got visible from a morning sun horizon creeping from the east..
Both the lanc as a target from normal german fighters (not nightfighters perse)..as for the lanc to detect trailing german fighters..
At the time the decision was made to remove the Ventral turret, there were plans to put something else in its place. Greg will most definitely covering said item in a future video. When the USAAF fitted their own version of said device, it was located were the Ball Turret was.
@@amerigo88 The Schragemusik attacks were aimed at a wing somewhere between the two engines. The reason for this was there was a fuel tank there. Mosquito nightfighter escort support started well before the Schragemusik installation was known about. However, the first Mosquito Nightfighters given to Bomber Command were a bunch of clapped out NF Mk II's fitted with AI. Mk IV radars and Serrate radar homers. AI Mk IV was next to useless in Chaff, The Switch to the longer Wavelength SN2 radars in the German Nightfighters made Serrate useless and the Merlins in the Mosquitos were well worn out and caused a large number of engine failures. Harris had been proposing Mosquito nightfighter support for the bombers as early as 1942 but it wasn;t until late 1944 that he got any major numbers of the latest version of the aircraft with a decent centimetric radar. AGLT did not become operational until late 1944 and very few aircraft (4 squadrons worth) were fitted with it. Schragemusik became operational on 17th August 1943 (first kill with it was during the Peenemunde raid) but only around 1/3 of the German Nightfighter force was ever equipped with it and it wasn't an easy bit of equipment to use (though in the hands of an expert pilot, he could really rack up the kills if he got into the heart of the Bomber Stream).
Brilliant as always - balanced and above all facts to support ur conclusions. Bravo