COMBAT COMPARISON|AVRO LANCASTERS
the three. Although it was generally
popular with its crews and surprisingly
agile in the air given its size, it sat
high on its undercarriage when on the
ground and was tricky to manoeuvre
to and from the runway. Lack of power
and low service ceiling resulted in
many losses and meant that its time
in frontline service was short. The
Lancaster was undoubtedly far superior.
Perhaps the Lancaster’s most
obvious comparison is its stablemate,
the Handley Page Halifax. The two
bombers were similar in many ways;
the general shape, number of crew
and role. The Halifax was (depending
on variant and payload
carried) slightly faster
than the Lanc andhad roughly the same altitude service
ceiling. But the Avro had longer range
and could carry an incredibly large
war load – 22,000lb (10,000kg), almost
double the HP bomber’s capacity.
Air Marshal Arthur Harris was
extremely critical of the Halifax’s
inferior load capabilities.
Crucially, the Halifax
couldn’t be adapted
to fit the ‘cookie’ or
even larger ‘Grand
Slam’ weapons, which
increasingly became
key components
of the wide-area
bombing strategy to
knock the enemyABOVE LEFT
A US Army Air
Force B-17G
Flying Fortress
between mission
at its Knettishall,
Suffolk, base.ABOVE
A Stirling being
armed and
refuelled for
another raid on
Hitler’s forces.into submission. Some reports
suggest the Halifax only remained in
production because the demand gave
little other choice. Notably, any new
manufacturing was dedicated to the
Lanc.
The smallest of the big three –
being a fraction shorter than the
Halifax – the Lancaster was said to be
particularly strong and resilient with a
smooth, quick flying experience for its
size. Often known to outmanoeuvre
the Luftwaffe’s response, its range
was a notable benefit, but its
biggest strength as far as Harris was
concerned was that it could be adapted
to fit the big payloads. In this regard,
no other bomber could compare. WORLD WAR TWO'S
FINEST BOMBER?
http://www.britainatwar.com^55the three. Although it was generally
popular with its crews and surprisingly
agile in the air given its size, it sat
high on its undercarriage when on the
ground and was tricky to manoeuvre
to and from the runway. Lack of power
and low service ceiling resulted in
many losses and meant that its time
in frontline service was short. The
Lancaster was undoubtedly far superior.
Perhaps the Lancaster’s most
obvious comparison is its stablemate,
the Handley Page Halifax. The two
bombers were similar in many ways;
the general shape, number of crew
and role. The Halifax was (depending
on variant and payload
carried) slightly faster
than the Lanc andhad roughly the same altitude service
ceiling. But the Avro had longer range
and could carry an incredibly large
war load – 22,000lb (10,000kg), almost
double the HP bomber’s capacity.
Air Marshal Arthur Harris was
extremely critical of the Halifax’s
inferior load capabilities.
Crucially, the Halifax
couldn’t be adapted
to fit the ‘cookie’ or
even larger ‘Grand
Slam’ weapons, which
increasingly became
key components
of the wide-area
bombing strategy to
knock the enemyABOVE LEFT
A US Army Air
Force B-17G
Flying Fortress
between mission
at its Knettishall,
Suffolk, base.ABOVE
A Stirling being
armed and
refuelled for
another raid on
Hitler’s forces.into submission. Some reports
suggest the Halifax only remained in
production because the demand gave
little other choice. Notably, any new
manufacturing was dedicated to the
Lanc.
The smallest of the big three –
being a fraction shorter than the
Halifax – the Lancaster was said to be
particularly strong and resilient with a
smooth, quick flying experience for its
size. Often known to outmanoeuvre
the Luftwaffe’s response, its range
was a notable benefit, but its
biggest strength as far as Harris was
concerned was that it could be adapted
to fit the big payloads. In this regard,
no other bomber could compare. http://www.britainatwar.com^55