soc.history.war.world-war-ii

"Robert Sveinson" wrote in message
news:Bqrvj.588$XO4.429@newsfe19.lga...

> > Without bothering to look it up, it was my impression that the
> > B-17s were usually higher than the B-24s on missions.
>
> In Bomber Command the same situation
> existed. The Stirlings couldn't fly as high
> as the Halifaxes and Lancasters. The Halifaxes couldn't
> fly as high as the Lancasters (and Manchesters IIRC).
> The Stirlings were eventually sidelined for
> raids into Germany, and eventually the early marks
> of Halifaxes were stood down too.

No, it's a bit more complicated than that.
The Stirling was a prewar design, to prewar
specifications that limited total wingspan (so the
aircraft would fit into current hangars) and its
bomb-bay (like that of the B-17) was so designed
that it could not carry the larger-sized bombs
produced from 1940 onwards: and its engines
provided less speed and a lower operational altitude
than later 4-engined designs. Stirlings were eventually
reassigned as glider tugs etc. By contrast the smaller
but contemporary Wellington was deployed on offensive
operations almost up to the end of the war: its performance
was similar and its construction withstood battle damage better.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)