Lancaster bomb load reduced using American bombs?

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
Post Reply
User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

Lancaster bomb load reduced using American bombs?

#1

Post by Andy H » 15 May 2014, 23:38

Hi

Does anyone know by how much a Lancasters bomb load was reduced when they were carrying
American bombs which had box style tail fins?

Regards

Andy H

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Lancaster bomb load reduced using American bombs?

#2

Post by phylo_roadking » 16 May 2014, 00:02

Interesting! Not a wrinkle I'd previously come across...

http://www.lancaster-archive.com/bc_bom ... iaries.htm
American Bombs:

With United States entry into the war and the arrival of the USAAF in England. Bomber Command gained access to American made bombs. During 1944 when British made bombs were in short supply the Command dropped significant amounts of the American type ANM 44, 58 these being the equivalent to the British 500 lbs. MC's. Additionally large quantities of ANM 59 and ANM 64, 1,000 lbs bomb were also pressed in to service by all of the Command's front line squadrons.

For the Command's armours the introduction of these types was we must assume welcomed, as the American bombs were faster to fuse and tail than the British made bombs they were used to working with. However, the "box" tail design which added significant length to each bomb, drastically reduced the amounts of bombs which could be carried by each British aircraft.
But if you chase down the actual dimensions of the four types, and the dimensions of the Lanc's bombbay... ?
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...


User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Lancaster bomb load reduced using American bombs?

#3

Post by phylo_roadking » 16 May 2014, 01:21

A limited Bingo! :D

http://www.lancaster-archive.com/lanc_bomb_loads.htm

See under "Area Bombing Raids (Industrial Demolition)"
Bomber Command Executive Codeword: "ABNORMAL"
Target Type: Factories, Rail yards, Dockyards
14 x 1,000 lb Medium Case (MC), General Purpose (GP) RDX or US short-finned High Explosive (HE) bombs. With mix of instantaneous (nose-armed) and long-delay (up to 144 hours, tail-armed) fusing.
Note the caveat on short-finned U.S. bombs ;)
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: Lancaster bomb load reduced using American bombs?

#4

Post by Andy H » 17 May 2014, 13:20

Hi Phylo

Thanks for the response, excellent link, thanks. :D

I came across the info in Bomber Harris: Sir Arthur Harris' Despatch on War Operations 1942-1945
http://www.amazon.com/Bomber-Harris-Des ... 1783032987
a book full of fascinating facts etc, well worth its £'s or from your local library (just been released)

Regards

Andy H

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Lancaster bomb load reduced using American bombs?

#5

Post by phylo_roadking » 17 May 2014, 20:51

Well - if you read that as 14 British OR American short-finned bombs....then I don't see where the drastic reduction comes in?

But if you look at the "mixed" bombload on that page that has a couple of U.S. box-finned bombs and various British types, am I right in thinking it looks like the American ordnance was a replacement for 1,000lb bombs?
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: Lancaster bomb load reduced using American bombs?

#6

Post by Andy H » 17 May 2014, 21:16

Hi Phylo

If you look at the medium range low level bomb load it notes that capacity
was reduced because of the long-finned bombs. Thus capacity was cut from
14, to 6x1000lb bombs!

Regards

Andy H

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Lancaster bomb load reduced using American bombs?

#7

Post by phylo_roadking » 17 May 2014, 21:53

If you look at the medium range low level bomb load it notes that capacity
was reduced because of the long-finned bombs. Thus capacity was cut from
14, to 6x1000lb bombs!
Yes....but those aren't U.S. "box" fins in the illustrations, those are these, surely?

Image
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Lancaster bomb load reduced using American bombs?

#8

Post by phylo_roadking » 17 May 2014, 23:14

Aha! Andy, look at the date caveat...
Bomber Command Executive Codeword: not known
Target Type: General
6 x 1,000 lb MC or GP bombs, tail-armed with mix of 11 sec to 60 min delay fusing. Capacity limited (in 1942) by dependence on long-finned bombs, up to 3 x 250 lb, GP bombs sometimes added.
1942 was the start of Lancaster operations - publically, the Augsburg Raid of 17th April 1942...so is that hinting at early Lanc bombing operations being hampered by the 1,000lb GP bomb until the development of the 1,000lb MC bomb...?
http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php? ... &Itemid=60

Do you see what else it says in there about long tail fins?
Trails with bombs with a thinner case (0.58") were carried out in September, results were satisfactory. The bomb was recommended for service although ballistics trials had not yet been completed, more bombs were sent for detonation trials with Amatex and Amatol fillings, by this time the bombs were already in production with Amatex as the standing filling until results from the trial could be published. The report on the ballistics trials was issued in November which showed that using the trail of a GP bomb did not give consistency results and so a tail was designed specifically for the MC bomb, trials of which were carried out in March 1943 with satisfactory results.
...leading to the eventual MC "short" tail...

Image

But that looks like a separate issue to the "American" bombs question...because that's 1944...
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Lancaster bomb load reduced using American bombs?

#9

Post by phylo_roadking » 18 May 2014, 00:07

Additionally large quantities of ANM 59 and ANM 64, 1,000 lbs bomb were also pressed in to service by all of the Command's front line squadrons
So, getting back to this, the AN-M59...from rafcommands.com

1,000 lb semi-armour piercing bomb. Used against armoured ships and concrete fortifications.

Diameter: 384 mm / 15.1 in

Length: 1790 mm/ 70.5 in

From that wwiiequipment.com reference from earlier...


Bomb 1,000-lb MC Mk I-II

Body diameter 17.75in (45.08cm)

Total length 72.6in (184.4cm)


The 1,000lb MC was fatter and longer? 8O
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: Lancaster bomb load reduced using American bombs?

#10

Post by Andy H » 19 May 2014, 12:25

Hi Phylo

Thanks for the PM and your input so far.

Regards

Andy H

Post Reply

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”