Lancaster defensive tactics

[Ack-Ack]

Since I didn't want to further hijack the Japanese Navy thread, here you go Semp showing more proof that the corkscrew was a defensive maneuver used by the Lancaster.

of course you have a book that explains this too. its a b26 but u get the idea.  I can tell you that the corckscrew maneuver was not effective  as you think it is or was used as widely as you think in formation.
semp

Here are some more examples of Lancasters using the corkscrew maneuver to avoid enemy night fighter attacks.  By the way, if it wasn't a successful maneuver, why was it taught to the Lancaster crews and why did they routinely practice the maneuver?

Here is a journal entry from the diary of Bruce Johnson, a Lancaster pilot during the war.

June 17, 1944 (Saturday)

Operation # 3 - Montdidier

Eighteen 500 pound bombs
(brought twelve back)

Sat around waiting for an H2S lecture all morning then out to fly fighter affiliation. Aircraft U/S so we came back and the detail scrubbed.

Went over “N” for Nan in the afternoon for a trip tonight.

Went to Montdidier in France – railroad yards. 10/10 cloud at target, so Master Bomber sent us back.

Another “what a trip”. Saw more activity over England than we did over the continent! Saw a couple of the Pilotless efforts, and great long searchlight lanes, ack ack etc.

We were late again, and pounded the engines unmercifully trying to catch up. Didn’t manage it until back to England.

Weaved like hell as soon as we hit France and all the way throughout with an occasional banking search and corkscrew thrown in for good measure. We had 10/10 beneath us though, which blanked out a lot of the opposition.

Just before our turn into the target a Junkers 88 went under us by about twenty or thirty feet and the gunners nearly jumped out he appeared so suddenly. He didn’t see us as he was coming from the light side of the sky – but believe you me he never would have got a decent shot at us anyway!!

There was a patch of flak on the coast going out and we went around it. We jettisoned six bombs off the coast to bring our weight down to 50,000 pounds for landing and when we get back we find we boobed – it’s 55,000 pounds for landing.

Bickford jettisoned all of his and another fellow didn’t hear the Master Bomber and bombed the glow on the cloud. The rest brought ’em all back.

Just after jettisoning did a terrific diving corkscrew to dodge a couple of twin engine machines which by the gunners accounts were right on top of us.

Lost 5,000 ft at 350 mph and had to use trim to pull out – force of the pull out threw out both trunks and the fuel fumes nearly got the most of the gunners – luckily we’d used number one’s tank and number two’s were nearly full so we got back OK.

Were last to land and got to bed at 6:30.

P/O Traill – an Aussie – missing. A punk trip!

Here is another snippet from the BBC series of articles, WW2 People's War.  This is a part of an interview with a Lancaster pilot, Flight Lieutenant Owen Scott D.F.C.  In the interview, he describes what they did to try and spot enemy fighters and how they protected themselves if attacked.

Ninety per cent of our operations were at night, flying over enemy territory in the dark, dependent on maps and instruments, aware that enemy fighters would be on our tail. We flew manually and "rolled" the 37 ton loaded plane to see whether any enemy fighters were underneath us. To avoid fighter attack, we performed a "corkscrew" operation Being caught in a searchlight was a terrifying experience as it made our plane an easy target for enemy shells.

This is from a site that talks about RAF Bomber Command tactics.

Because RAF Bomber Command mostly mounted unescorted Area bombing night raids the tactics employed were different from those of the Eighth USAAF whose bombers attacked during the day using Precision bombing. Initially the British bombers were widely dispersed when they flew to their targets and this enabled the night fighters of the German Kammhuber Line to cause casualties among each succeeding flight as they passed through the various 'boxes'. To counter this the bomber stream, first used for the Thousand bomber raid on Cologne in May 1942, was introduced. Instead of bombers converging on their target from their airfields separately they were gathered in one stream by giving each bomber a time and height to fly over a predetermined point. This created, by the time the Kammhuber Line was being approached, a mass of aircraft 112 km. (70 ml.) long and some 1,200 m. (4,000 ft.) deep, which, with any luck, completely overwhelmed the Kammhuber defensive box through which it flew. Air gunners had strict orders never to open fire unless attacked as a bomber was more likely to survive by evasion in the dark than by taking the offensive. If attacked, the corkscrew manoeuvre was the best tactic to employ; Martin Middlebrook relates how one German nigh fighter ace followed a corkscrewing Lancaster bomber for three quarters of an hour without once being able to get into a firing position.  

Yet another one that describes the various evasive tactics RAF Bomber Command used.

Evasive Tactics
In addition to the radar assistance, survival depended on the crew’s senses, operational experience, and the corkscrew manoeuvre. The corkscrew, although a fairly effective tactic under normal circumstances, was less effective because the heavy loads carried by Halifaxes and Lancasters considerably inhibited their manoeuverability. On receiving a gunner’s warning of an impending attack the corkscrew required the pilot to turn sharply and simultaneously dive towards the approaching fighter, then quickly reverse direction while pulling up his aircraft into a steep climb. It was a violent manoeuvre that often scattered the navigator’s dividers, pencils and protractors, and sometimes brought crew members other than the pilot to the point of nausea. Nevertheless, sound judgement and accurate directions from the gunners, together with quick reactions by the pilot, were the “sine qua non” of the corkscrew. Repeating the manoeuvre for as long as necessary in order to evade the attacker, while giving the gunners opportunities to shoot it down was however, physically demanding. In daylight the corkscrew was largely ineffective against nimbler single-engine fighters; but under cover of darkness it enabled the bomber to contend with a fair degree of success. Some crews resorted to the corkscrew throughout their time over enemy territory; others only when attacked. One crew from 514 Squadron reported corkscrewing for an hour during the Nuremberg raid in order to hold off fighter attacks. A Luftwaffe pilot reported the same night that he failed to complete an attack against a Lancaster because it successfully resorted to the defensive manoeuver for 45 minutes!

“Spoof’s”
Another tactic meant to fool the German night-fighters was the “spoof’ or diversionary attack. When a raid was mounted a certain number of aircraft would be used on spoofs. Each spoof would be intended to divert the German fighters away from the Bomber Stream.

The Route
The route the Bomber Stream would take was also predetermined and designed to try and fool the Germans. It was rarely straight and usually included several dog’s legs. The route to the target was usually the most dangerous as the bombers were fully loaded and slow. The courses attempted to avoid German anti-aircraft (Flak) positions along the coast, or near major centres. To be avoided at all costs were the Luftwaffe’s fighter beacons, the collection point for that region’s night fighter forces.

One thing that has also become clear is that you are of the belief that RAF Bomber Command flew in box formations like USAAF bombers did, they didn't.  They flew in bomber streams in a loose formation.  You can easily research in more depth the formations they used but it does seem that you think they flew in boxes and I think that's where a major point of your confusion is.  Anyway, now that I've shown you that it was used with plenty of pilot accounts describing how they did it, it's your turn to show with facts to back it up that it was not used or encouraged by RAF Bomber Command.

If anything, I hope you did enjoy the reading as the pilot accounts are a very good and interesting read.


ack-ack

[RTHolmes]

good info

[Wreked]

All good stuff - remember the Brits shut down strategic day operations because their main heavy bomber could NOT sustain itself in day time even with "corkscrew" manauvering. It was only the cover of darkness that allowed this evasion technique to be successful. Basically the Lancs flew singlely - not in any sort of formation. They "rode the beam"!    Nightfighter JU88's (onboard radar) were one of their deadliest opponents. (***info note*** 2 American engineers had a large hand in origional Ju88 design :W.H. Evers and Alfred Grossner.)

Query : did the Brits ever outfit any Lancs with lower gun positions??

...cheers eh!

[Krusty]

They taught a lot of BS back in the war. Things that just don't fly with the benefit of "hindsight"....

Using a corkscrew in the black of night when you're alone is one thing... But you may as well have made a break turn, or a zoom climb.... Basically a Crazy Ivan to see if you're being followed. Heck, even that first story says they don't think the junkers saw them, so they could have flown a gentle path away from the bomber and never been in any danger.

It was also common practice to throw beer bottles out the back of the tail gunner position, to throw off radar! Let's see the physics to back that one up?

Just saying, because they used it at night, when you can't even see them anyways, doesn't mean "it worked"... If a tree falls in the forest, that kinda thing.

[guncrasher]

I posted this statement on another thread

"How would a fully loaded b17 be any different that lets, say the way we use the mossie, a20, 110's, those planes were not made to turn and loop the way its done in AH.  specially the 110, it was not allowed over England due to its inability to turn with any plane.  same with the diving lancs, b26's etc,  they could not release bombs in a dive.  the bombs were carried inside the fuselage if the release while diving they wouldda hit the pilot right in back of the head (ok just a little exaggeration), and yet dive bombing is done here all the time."

several threads down the road he posted his corkscrew defense, from a book (interesting I may add), in reply to the statement to the following statement.

"maybe you should re-read your notes, due to the ease at which 110's were shot down over england they were not allowed to go unless accompanies by heavy escort, which later in the war was consired a waste of resources.  lancs would not dive bomb because that would disrupt their formation, which was their main defense,  also they flew at night, with no lights, which made it even worst.  as for looping they had gunners, boxes of ammo, other crap and they would have been bouncing inside like a ball in a ping pong machine.  mossies were best at low level (and I mean tree top) light bombers but were no match for the fiters in dogfites, not saying they didnt shoot a few fiters, but their best defense was to hit and run like hell before anybody knew they were there."


and ack, thank you, I didnt know about the corkscrew maneuver, however as to how effective was, I still stand by my reply that it was not. you want facts, 3500 to 4000 lancs were lost (nearly 1/2) and if we were to find out how many lacs never saw combat, due to maintenace problems, were made too late in the war, etc.  you would find out that too many were lost to enemy fiters.  so no the maneuver was not very effective, not that it was never used.  but in the spirit that I wrote my original posting was.

-in ah diving buffs (lancs, a26) should not happen if bombs are carried inside the fuselage. bombs should not release on neg g pressure ( see the picture)
-110, mossies, a20's really should not outturn fiters, they didnt do it in the war, (dont mention that it depends on the skill of the player, i have shot down some very good players on a turn fite and I have zero skill  in anything other than my beloved spit).

here's a b26 releasing bombs while upside down.  it shouldnt happen. or even diving at a steep angle, like its done regularly here.

semp

[Ack-Ack]

They taught a lot of BS back in the war. Things that just don't fly with the benefit of "hindsight"....

Using a corkscrew in the black of night when you're alone is one thing... But you may as well have made a break turn, or a zoom climb.... Basically a Crazy Ivan to see if you're being followed. Heck, even that first story says they don't think the junkers saw them, so they could have flown a gentle path away from the bomber and never been in any danger.

It was also common practice to throw beer bottles out the back of the tail gunner position, to throw off radar! Let's see the physics to back that one up?

Just saying, because they used it at night, when you can't even see them anyways, doesn't mean "it worked"... If a tree falls in the forest, that kinda thing.

No, it wasn't 100% effective but the corkscrew maneuver was considered the best evasive tactic to use for Lancasters and other RAF bombers during night missions.  There is no refuting that point.

This is a diagram of the maneuver.


This is how you did it.

1. The pilot (originally cruising at 200-225 mph) opens his throttle and banks at 45 degrees to make a diving turn to port (because the enemy aircraft is on the port, reverse the maneuver if enemy is on starboard.); descending through 1,000 ft in six seconds, the bomber reaches a speed of nearly 300 mph. After the 1,000 ft descent, the pilot pulls the aircraft into a climb, still turning to port.

3. He reverse the turn, halfway through the climb which has caused his speed to fall sharply, possibly forcing the attacking night fighter to overshoot.

4. Regaining his original altitude, with speed down to 185 mph and still in the starboard turn, the pilot pushes the aircraft down into another dive.

5. Picking up speed in the dive, he descends through 500 ft before reversing the direction of the turn.

6. If the fighter is still on his tail, he stand by to repeat the maneuver. The physical effort required by the pilot has been compared with that of an oarsman pulling hard in a boat race.

The next question is what do we do with an attack from the front area since our turrets will not move left or right. If the attack is basically head on point the nose towards the enemy plane just like a fighter. Otherwise, use the corkscrew. It was rare that a Lancaster was attacked head on during night operations.

ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

I posted this statement and his corkscrew reply  was the answer to it.

"How would a fully loaded b17 be any different that lets, say the way we use the mossie, a20, 110's, those planes were not made to turn and loop the way its done in AH.  specially the 110, it was not allowed over England due to its inability to turn with any plane.  same with the diving lancs, b26's etc,  they could not release bombs in a dive.  the bombs were carried inside the fuselage if the release while diving they wouldda hit the pilot right in back of the head (ok just a little exaggeration), and yet dive bombing is done here all the time."

semp

My reply with discussing the corkscrew was to refute your point that the maneuvers we see the Lancaster do in game wasn't possible in real life.  The Corkscrew is a perfect example of that.  You then went on to reply that it was impossible for the Lancaster do to such a thing, which I proved again that it wasn't impossible and a very common occurance amongst Lancasters and other RAF bombers that took part in night missions. 

If you have any evidence that shows it wasn't common or used, then by all means show the evidence.


ack-ack

[CAP1]

They taught a lot of BS back in the war. Things that just don't fly with the benefit of "hindsight"....

Using a corkscrew in the black of night when you're alone is one thing... But you may as well have made a break turn, or a zoom climb.... Basically a Crazy Ivan to see if you're being followed. Heck, even that first story says they don't think the junkers saw them, so they could have flown a gentle path away from the bomber and never been in any danger.

It was also common practice to throw beer bottles out the back of the tail gunner position, to throw off radar! Let's see the physics to back that one up?you mean tinfoil?

Just saying, because they used it at night, when you can't even see them anyways, doesn't mean "it worked"... If a tree falls in the forest, that kinda thing.

[guncrasher]

I dont need proof to show that lancs (and other buffs with inside the fuselage bombs )could not dive bomb at the steep angle or even release bombs much less be accurate. that happens in AH, or that they did loops like it happens regularly in ah.  or as a matter of fact release bombs while pulling up, bombs would have jammed in their pods or whatever you call them that they were in, see picture above.


semp

[Karnak]

guncrasher,

You really need to do some studying before you post BS claims.  Bf110s not only were allowed over the UK, they were sent there aggressively during the Battle of Britain.  Yes, they fared poorly against Hurricanes and Spitfires, but they did shoot quite a few down too.  Mosquitoes were used as fighters and there is no reason they couldn't out turn a single engined fighter if it had poor turn capability, there is no magical "Twin engined aircraft can't out turn single engined aircraft" effect.  In AH the Mosquito will out turn very few single engined fighters in a flat turn.  To do so I almost always have to use yo-yos.  Believe it or not Mosquito fighters in WWII did engage in more than one dogfight during daylight operations.

You have some pretty bizarre ideas about how hard the limitations on maneuvers were.

[guncrasher]

guncrasher,

You really need to do some studying before you post BS claims.  Bf110s not only were allowed over the UK, they were sent there aggressively during the Battle of Britain.  Yes, they fared poorly against Hurricanes and Spitfires, but they did shoot quite a few down too.  Mosquitoes were used as fighters and there is no reason they couldn't out turn a single engined fighter if it had poor turn capability, there is no magical "Twin engined aircraft can't out turn single engined aircraft" effect.  In AH the Mosquito will out turn very few single engined fighters in a flat turn.  To do so I almost always have to use yo-yos.  Believe it or not Mosquito fighters in WWII did engage in more than one dogfight during daylight operations.

You have some pretty bizarre ideas about how hard the limitations on maneuvers were.

this was already discussed before, toward the end of the bob, 110's were not allowed to go without heavy fiter escort due to the fact that they were easily shot down by spitfires and hurricanes in the early stages of the war and this is a fact.  that's what the statement refers too, not at the begining were every single plane (a little exageration here ) germany owned was sent to britain. and then again I am only referring about how the 110's and mossies are modeled in ah where they outturn spitfires and other fiters and (yes in flat turns). which didnt happen in general.  not saying that 110;s and mossies didnt participate and/or shot down some fiters.  then again this thread is a continuation of another thread that you were not part of.  so sorry if it appears that wild claims are made.  

my main beef is not with the turning 110's and mossies, a20's etc, anyway.  its with the ability of buffs with inside the fuselage bombs to drop them while diving or climbing at steep angles, see the picture above, that shouldnt happen.  oh and btw my name is semp, not guncrasher .  


semp

[Chalenge]

I have noticed a 'surge' in Lanc pilots (and nearly every other bomber formation) that use the hard formation turn as a defense. The advantage to them is not turn rate but rather the spread that occurs upon the formation because as they reform they will 'warp' from one place to another and you will waste ammo if you attack the drones at the wrong time. Also you run the risk of a collision if you attack the lead from the dead six position (which is stupid anyway) so rather than do that you need to go for lead but from a high angle slashing approach so as to maximize your ability to distance yourself quickly from the rest of the formation.

The best defense a bomber has is altitude but when they are caught low (low on fuel or low altitude it doesnt matter) the best defense I have seen is speed and formation spread (as described above). A diving lanc formation is very fast (as seen from my Tempest for instance) and can still turn rather well. I have seen some individuals dive so as to align their flight path with my approach and as I go beneath them they will follow in trail and use the nose gun to wear you down. This is very effective but eventually they lose altitude and then there is no where for them to go.

When I see this tactic I generally use cruise power to conserve on fuel and make slashing attacks with two guns only until they are low and then its over for them.

Try to bear in mind this isnt WWII.

[CAP1]

i've never seen anyone release bombs while inverted. if this happens, you should've probably reported it as a bug.

 as for releasing in a dive? how steep are you talking? if there are no g forces keeping them in, or pushing them against the locks on their racks, then they should release properly....even in a dive. i don't like the lancstuka or the diving 17's either....but it gets done...and they're tasty snacks.

 as for you getting outturned by 110's? you should try them first. their simply being flown better.

[Karnak]

guncrasher,

The Mosquito will most certainly not out turn a Spitfire in a flat turn in AH.  You aren't seeing what you think you are seeing.  I am pretty sure the same is true of the Bf110.

The only fighters that I feel any confidence against in a flat turn while flying the Mosquito are the Fw190, P-47 and P-51 and all of those can go either way.  Any other fighter eats the Mosquito for lunch in a flat turn.

[Chalenge]

i've never seen anyone release bombs while inverted. if this happens, you should've probably reported it as a bug.

 as for releasing in a dive? how steep are you talking? if there are no g forces keeping them in, or pushing them against the locks on their racks, then they should release properly....even in a dive. i don't like the lancstuka or the diving 17's either....but it gets done...and they're tasty snacks.

 as for you getting outturned by 110's? you should try them first. their simply being flown better.

Actually this bomb 'flinging' was used during WWII (although primarily with napalm from a fighter) and they use it today even better with computer aid. I realize Shemps argument is that the bombs could not leave the shackles during pull-ups or negative g but that is also not true. There is a very narrow window in which they can toss or loft a bomb but it may be that AH does not account for that and just allows it altogether I dont know.

I have heard rumors that the 'idiots loop' came about when a noob screwed up his dive-bombing run in Korea and accidentily released on his reversal (hitting his target just the same). The idiots loop was not common knowledge until the USAF had a computer to do the hard work for the pilot (mid-50s I believe). In that case the bomb is released with the plane in a steep inverted climb and the target behind the pilots head.