COMBAT COMPARISON|AVRO LANCASTERS
http://www.britainatwar.com^57ABOVE
A pair of Mosquito
bombers from
105 Squadron
c.1942.BELOW
A line-up of RAF
B-25 Mitchell
medium bombers.The Luftwaffe, meanwhile, had
strong medium bombers, such as
the Heinkel He 111, Junkers Ju 88,
and Dornier Do 17 – as the surviving
inhabitants of Britain’s big cities
would testify – but again not in the
Lanc’s league. The twin-prop Heinkel
He 177 'Greif' (Griffin) heavy bomber
was the closest comparison, faster
than its British and US counterparts
and with a good range, but dogged
by technical issues that hampered its
operational career.
THE VERDICT
Let’s be clear: the very concept of
bombing – let alone the intentional,
concentrated bombardment
of heavily populated areas – is
regrettable, to say the least. But,
ethics and justification aside, crews
were given a task to do night after
night, at considerable risk to their
own survival – life expectancy of new
arrivals was barely two weeks. So,
how well did the machines they were
given perform? Of course, it depends
on what criteria is used. No one
machine was perfect for every role.
Some possessed a versatility far
beyond their original conception.
“BUT THE MOST LIKELY CONTENDER IS THE VICKERS
WELLINGTON, AN EXCELLENT ALL-ROUNDER THATCOULD TAKE A LOT OF PUNISHMENT”
Certainly the Wellington was put to
a wide range of uses. The Halifax saw
much action in Coastal Command in
addition to its Bomber Command role.
Meanwhile, the Lanc’s role
diversified, during and post-war,
from photoreconnaissance and anti-
submarine warfare to flying the first
civilian flight from Heathrow. What’s
more, in terms of legacy, both the
Lincoln and Shackleton can trace their
ancestry back to the Lanc – few types
can claim such a dynasty!
What about crew survival rates? Speed
and manoeuvrability were important.
Some bombers were better defended
than others, although award-winning
physicist Freeman Dyson, who served
in the RAF’s Operational Research
Section in the Second World War, put
forward the case to remove gunners
altogether, suggesting that the greater
speed through reduced weight coupled
with two fewer personnel would result
in fewer casualties. The Lancaster
could take a fair pummelling, yet, for
all its advantages, the Lanc had itslimitations. It was particularly difficult
to bale out of, for example. Reports
suggest a 15% success rate of exiting
a falling Lancaster, compared to 25%
of the Halifax, though neither was
a scratch on the 50% claimed by US
counterparts (albeit during daytime).
So, the verdict? Purely based on
its bomber objective, the Lancaster
clearly outstripped its contemporaries
on most counts in the European
war. It’s certainly the most highly
decorated – of the 13 Victoria Crosses
awarded to Bomber Command
personnel, ten of these went to
Lancaster aircrew. That said, in
terms of length of service, robustness
and sheer production numbers, the
Wellington definitely deserves the
lifetime achievement award for its
dogged determination. The B-29 was
better suited for long-range combat
missions over the Pacific but carried
out far fewer operational sorties than
the Lanc. It’s subjective, but I think the
evidence suggests the Lancaster takes
the crown.