Lancaster from above

[Finn]

A nice top view of a Lanc on a daylight mission:

 

 

bomb doors are open, turrets looking for a possible threat from the starboard rear quarter, oil stains on the tailplane with a replacement elevator among the details.

 

Jari

[Uncarina]

This is an excellent reference photo Jari, thanks!

 

Cheers,  Tom

[Finn]

Here is another one, the caption said it was attacking a V-1 site:

 

 

Jari

[RLWP]

So - why do the outer engines cause one 'streak' and the inner engines two?

 

I like the way the identical camo patterns are not exactly the same

 

Richard

[mozart]

15 minutes ago, RLWP said:

So - why do the outer engines cause one 'streak' and the inner engines two?

 

I like the way the identical camo patterns are not exactly the same

 

Richard

Airflow Richard, they’re all the same. 

[Ossington 1]

The dihedral to the outer wing raises the leading edge above the exhaust plume, hence the lead deposits wrap over the outer nacelle and under the wing and not over like the others.

[RLWP]

More likely it's the lift raising the tip of the wing rather than dihedral (which I think is a static thing*)

 

Interesting though, innit

 

Richard

 

*I'm probably wrong

[Finn]

This pic shows the exhaust on the inboard of the outer engine of a Lancaster just below the wing, while in the background you can see the exhaust of the outer engine in relation to the wing:

 

 

Jari

[RLWP]

Maritime patrol Lancs?

 

Richard

[LSP_Matt]

Great photo references for building a kit.

An indictment though on the dogmatic strategy of bomber command.  Seven young men in each plane sent into hostile territory where staggering loss rates were normal only to see the accuracy visible in those paddocks.  It must have been demoralising for them to take such risks and see so many of their sticks fall in empty fields.

Matty

[mozart]

I can understand crews feeling frustrated rather than demoralised in the early wars of the bomber war when bombs within five miles of the target were the norm, but as navigational aids such as Gee, Oboe and H2S developed, accuracy was as good as could reasonably be expected, given the requirements of the steady bomb run, the flak and of course night fighters.

 

“Creep back”, ie bombs being dropped short of the markers was a common phenomenon due to the crews’ eagerness to get rid of their load and get out of the inferno, but they would be in trouble on return to Base if they were found out.  Bomber crews were pragmatic about their jobs, phlegmatic about the risks involved but never that I’ve read in many years were they demoralised due to not hitting the target.

[Ossington 1]

I think this particular photo was taken whilst attacking a V1 site or similar. Countryside underneath does not necessarily indicate it's a wasted bombload. I had a brief shufti on the IBCC website to find the image, hoping to get a date or location but gave up.  

[RLWP]

On night raids, you'd have no chance of knowing where your bombs landed. On day raids, I imagine you'd be more interested in turning around and getting home

 

I doubt many Lanc crews ever saw where their bombs landed

 

Richard

[mozart]

The second picture is Lancaster KB745 (VR-V) of 419 Squadron RCAF flying out of Middleton St George in Yorkshire. In the first half of July 44 there were a lot of ops attacking V1 launch sites and flying bomb stores in northern France. Given that this is a daylight op., and looking at the Squadron operations record books, this was either on 6 July, 9 July or 12 July. Note the comments columns below about bombing techniques and strategies, not once did they bomb purely on a visual, rather on Gee or Target Indicators:

 

 

 

 

Edited January 15 by mozart

[Finn]

Speaking of V-1s, here is a Halifax attacking a V-1 base, as the captions says:

 

 

and how much they put into stopping the V-1 attacks on England:

 

 

Jari