Originally Posted by George
@ least part is British retaliation for the German tactic of bombing/burning down enemy cities, the other part was the decision that the RAF bombers wern't up to taking on German defences in daylight startigic bombing. The US took heavy casulties with daylight bombing, but witch contributed more to Germany's defeat? and.. Would the Allies have done better, shortened the War if the RAF had bought/built B-17s & B-24s & threw their bomb weight into strategic bombing of specific targets.
Sorry George, I don't see any reason why the RAF would buy or build the B17 or the B24 when the Lancaster had a far larger payload? If I remember correctly the B24 had a payload of 8000 pound, early versions of the B17 was 4000 pound,while the Lancaster had a 22000 pound payload. Granted a large number RAF Squadrons were equipped with the B24, but Bomber Command favoured the Lancaster because of its payload.
The B24 was a brilliant aircraft when the RAF used her in Coastal Command with her long range on anti submarine patrols which the Lancaster didn't have.
Britain tried daylight bombing but because the casualty rates were so high the idea was scrapped in favour of night bombing. Even with the heavier armament of the B17 and B24, US bomber crews suffered terrible losses during daylight operations until the P51 came on line.
There was also some rivalry and a lot of disagreement between the RAF and the US Air Force as to which targets should be attacked.
Originally Posted by MontyB
In my opinion recognition of those who served in Bomber Command is long over due but Harris himself should have been in the docks next to Goering.
I couldn't agree more.