# B-17vsLancaster



## Viper (Feb 4, 2004)

Heres a question,What do you think is a better aircraft B-17 or the lanc.Sure the lanc could hold more bombs but the Fort was more heavly armed. I could go on and on about what charectoristics the two of the planes had ,but Ill jus say the two of the bombers were awsome in their own ways and the war would have probually been alot diffrent without them.
reply on your comments to which aircraft was better.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2004)

you realise this topic is going to be on fire, the battle for supremacy between the lanc and the b-17 always manages to wind up in any topic one way or another 

by the way, the lanc for me


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2004)

THE LANCASTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BTW. your just asking for it starting a topic like this


----------



## Crazy (Feb 5, 2004)

Oh dammit! Thanks Viper, now I have to fight tooth and nail for the B-17 all over again!   

Will none step up to defend the B-17?

At least the B-17 COULD bomb during the day. If the Lanc had been used as a day bomber, it would have been torn to pieces!


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 5, 2004)

Just to help everyone (I'm a Lanc Man myself  )

As Crazy has pointed out, the Lancaster would of been Shot Down in their hundred's in daylight   and I'm sure the B-17 would of been just (Maybe more so with those .50's.....) as good as the Lanc at night. But as we all know the Lanc could carry ANYTHING 8) . So deep down both were just as good as each other 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Feb 5, 2004)

Crazy said:


> Oh dammit! Thanks Viper, now I have to fight tooth and nail for the B-17 all over again!
> 
> Will none step up to defend the B-17?
> 
> At least the B-17 COULD bomb during the day. If the Lanc had been used as a day bomber, it would have been torn to pieces!


I agree lol the lanc would be slaughtered,
but the lanc could hold alot of merchandise  but i like the fort alot more than the lanc.


----------



## Crazy (Feb 6, 2004)

true, the B-17 couldn't throw much at the enemy in the way of bombs.  

So as HS pointed out, they're just as good deep down


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 6, 2004)

that's just it, "deep down" there was nothing in the B-17, unlike the lanc which had lots of bombs inside


----------



## Viper (Feb 7, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> that's just it, "deep down" there was nothing in the B-17, unlike the lanc which had lots of bombs inside


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 8, 2004)

stop doing that, it's scaring me


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 8, 2004)

but only cos it's so crap, not because i'm intimidated or anything


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 8, 2004)

youre being weakened lanc, hes subliminally messaging you with it


----------



## Crazy (Feb 8, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 9, 2004)

crap crap crap crap CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (the B-17, not lancaster)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 9, 2004)

ah you see normally lanc, you wouldnt need to say you was saying the b-17 was crap, but you ARE being weakened and feel the need to state the plane you are commenting on


----------



## Crazy (Feb 9, 2004)

extreme radicals like Lanc hate the voice of reason


----------



## Viper (Feb 9, 2004)

Crazy said:


>


beautiful


----------



## Viper (Feb 9, 2004)

lol,you cant hide from it lanc the 17 is better,im sorry,i even had family members fly lancasters but i still like the B-17 way more,lol


----------



## Crazy (Feb 9, 2004)

now that's devotion


----------



## Viper (Feb 9, 2004)

Crazy said:


> now that's devotion


you better belive it,lol


----------



## Crazy (Feb 9, 2004)

You notice? These are all Nine O Nine? Repetition is good 8)

EDIT: dang it, m8. you're belle wasn't there when I posted


----------



## Crazy (Feb 9, 2004)

Do you suppose we're filling this thread so much with his dire enemy that it will become inhospitable to him?  We're only making up for his Lanc sig. Every time he posts, he states an opinion


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 10, 2004)

you guys just can't hack it, the lanc was better............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 10, 2004)

im neutral and ill support anyone


----------



## Crazy (Feb 10, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> you guys just can't hack it, the lanc was better............



ok, now defend that position


----------



## Viper (Feb 10, 2004)

Crazy said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > you guys just can't hack it, the lanc was better............
> ...


lanc sorry to say,but your one of the only people for lancasters here


----------



## Viper (Feb 10, 2004)

Crazy said:


> You notice? These are all Nine O Nine? Repetition is good 8)
> 
> EDIT: dang it, m8. you're belle wasn't there when I posted


o well more pics of the 17 the merrier


----------



## Viper (Feb 10, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> you guys just can't hack it, the lanc was better............


nope


----------



## Viper (Feb 10, 2004)

oops that 1's kinda big,lol o wel,good wall paper


----------



## Archer (Feb 10, 2004)

Its a B-17, that means its a bad wallpaper


----------



## Andrew (Feb 11, 2004)

The Lanc is a much better bomber 


Nuff said 

Andrew

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 11, 2004)

here my opinion of things:

the lanc was better as a bomber, but the b-17 was the better all-around plane  (correct me if im wrong)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 11, 2004)

na, best allround plane is the mosquito


----------



## Crazy (Feb 11, 2004)

All around, the Mosquito was better, but between the Lanc and the B-17, the B-17 was a better all-around plane


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 11, 2004)

i was talking comparitively between the 2, i didnt mean out of all the bombers, just the b-17 and lanc


----------



## Archer (Feb 11, 2004)

Best all-round would be the Corsair IMO. It could perform dive bombing, close air support, escort, interception, night fighting, photorecon, fighter sweeps, and most importantly, it could operate from carriers.

The Mosquito couldn't land on carriers (well, they could, but they probably would be pushed over the side afterwards)


----------



## Viper (Feb 11, 2004)

i agree that the lanc was a better bomber but the b-17 was a better plane


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 11, 2004)

Viper said:


> i agree that the lanc was a better bomber but the b-17 was a better plane



I think out of all the Posts on the many Threads here about this, this is one quote which is truthful 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 13, 2004)

THE LANCASTER IS SOOOOOOOOOOO BETTER, you just can't hack it


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 13, 2004)

calm down lanc, that quote up there is accurate enough if you ask me


----------



## Viper (Feb 13, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> THE LANCASTER IS SOOOOOOOOOOO BETTER, you just can't hack it


woa,simmer down,YOU cant hack that the 17 is a better plane


----------



## Viper (Feb 13, 2004)

has anybody been in a real one?,i rembered there is 2 lancasters within 50 miles of were i live,one sitting outside being exposed to the elements and one in a museum. One is in calgary and the other is in nanton,there are two lancasters in the area becuase there is a air commowealth training base from world war 2 and there was lancasters situated there for training bomber crews. The ones spar has been damaged from being on a concrete pedistole and the other one is in much better shape and has two engines functioning,i belive it is scedualed to taxi down the runway this summer.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 13, 2004)

Cool 8) 

I'll like to see Pictures of that  

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Feb 13, 2004)

www.lancastermuseum.ca 
this is the homepage of the museum,take a look,i toured that one.


----------



## Viper (Feb 13, 2004)

About the airtraining base,almost all the mamoth hangers are still standing (but in poor condtion)Two of the runways are still serviceable,i have also been to this and toured around,we have freinds that own the base and we have a cessna 180 that we often fly to the base to look around. or we store our 2 cropdusters in one of the hangers. Although the base is in poor condition it is still a very intresting expierience to see.

I almost forgot,the base is located at vulcan alberta there is a link at the nanton museum homepage that is about the base,look it up if u are intrested


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 14, 2004)

god, i'd love to go there.........


----------



## Viper (Feb 16, 2004)

ya its really awsome


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 16, 2004)

Feller's, not bitching here, but could you all keep your B-17/Lancaster Posts to this Thread from now on, please. They're all over the place  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2004)

sorry  ill use the thread you created from now on


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 17, 2004)

Thanks, M8 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 17, 2004)

yeah, er dunno how all that happend


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 17, 2004)

It's that B-17/Lancaster Fever that's going around  

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 18, 2004)

yeah, lancaster/B-17 fever, that's it  ..............................


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 19, 2004)

Stop all the maddness! It is the B-24 that rules the skies. faster, longer legs and better bombs! Yes the Lanc was able to carry Tons, but not ver the 'Hump' r had the versitility like the Liberator. The nly other airframe I would argue as virsital was the Halifax.


----------



## Viper (Feb 19, 2004)

Hot Space said:


> Feller's, not bitching here, but could you all keep your B-17/Lancaster Posts to this Thread from now on, please. They're all over the place
> 
> Hot Space


ya we get a bit caried away


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 19, 2004)

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Feb 19, 2004)

b-24? no this is a 17 thread


----------



## Viper (Feb 19, 2004)

if u want an ugly plane,the b-24 should be sufficient,those big landing gears....ick


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 19, 2004)

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Feb 19, 2004)

???


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 21, 2004)

I've said it before, and i'll say it again, the B-17 only looked good in coastal command colours


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2004)

the b-17 looks better than lancaster though  oh well, beuty is in the eye of the beholder lanc...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 21, 2004)

stop getting all preverbial on us cheese.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 23, 2004)

merely an expression of my opinion on the subjuct


----------



## Viper (Feb 23, 2004)

lol cheddar..... ive never seen a 17 in coastal colors could somebody find a pic please. i like them best in the classic olive drab and grey,like memphis belle


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 24, 2004)

8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2004)

is that spam cheddar cheese?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 24, 2004)

nope this is 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2004)

well, that was cheap....................


----------



## Viper (Feb 24, 2004)

can some one get a pic of the 17 in coastal comand colors please?


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 24, 2004)

Hot Space 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 25, 2004)

> well, that was cheap



of course it was, you told me to put that, so, HA! jokes on you 8)


----------



## Viper (Feb 25, 2004)

that thig makes it look like a frigen lancaster!!!! i dont like it,ill stay with the olive drap and grey or polished aluminum


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 25, 2004)

One almost compares apples to oranges when putting the Lancaster up against the B-17. They were both very good at their intended roles, although I have to say I'd lean more towards the Lanc as the champion as it delivered a much heavier bombload (surprisingly accurately with the target marking techniques later in the war).

Easy to say the Lanc wouldn't survive quite as well in daylight as the B-17, but that's not what the Lanc was designed for, so its a moot point. Likewise, the B-17 was overarmed and armoured for flying at night. 

As a closer, I visited the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum on the weekend and saw one of the world's two flying Lancasters (huzzah!), very beautiful and awe-inspiring. Even my "non-partisan" girlfriend who knows little about planes besides which end is the front and back decided the Lanc was her favourite plane of the museum (woohoo!)

-- Chris


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2004)

> that thig makes it look like a frigen lancaster!!!! i dont like it,ill stay with the olive drap and grey or polished aluminum



now we know why the lanc thinks it only looks good in those colours 

and i agree with you, it does look better in olive drab and grey 8)

and is it just me or does the b-17 look quite modern for its time?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2004)

just you........................

BTW: that model in the pic is £99.99!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Viper (Feb 26, 2004)

yes the 17 looked modern for its time but the bomb load was not....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 27, 2004)

true  i think they may have overdone the defences on the b-17 just a bit


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 27, 2004)

a 'lil...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 27, 2004)

whereas the lancaster didnt have enough defences 8)


----------



## Viper (Feb 27, 2004)

I just found out that the belle is being completely restored,can somone find out if it is going to fly?
I got some pics of it being tore down,its being painted,new engines,the works


----------



## Viper (Feb 27, 2004)

Viper said:


> I just found out that the belle is being completely restored,can somone find out if it is going to fly?
> I got some pics of it being tore down,its being painted,new engines,the works


----------



## Viper (Feb 27, 2004)

damm....it didnt work,awel


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2004)

what was it that made the Belle so famous?


----------



## Viper (Mar 1, 2004)

lol.....it was the first plane in the 8th airforce to finish its tour of duty


----------



## Viper (Mar 1, 2004)

here is a pic of the lancaster in calgary,another one i have seen. Its in very poor condition,the spar is cracked,noengines,most of the windows have been broke,coktpit vandalized and many other things. It is slowly being restored ,its just been painted but it still needs lots of work


----------



## Viper (Mar 1, 2004)

kind of a tacky paint job if you ask me,it had the classic black,brown and green before


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 2, 2004)

yup  barely even looks like a lancaster, and who would want to vandalise such a great plane  aha, it all clicking into place, now we know where crazy has been..... :-X


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 2, 2004)

yes, good point ............................


----------



## Viper (Mar 2, 2004)

dont ask me,ive seen the coktpit,what a mess,damm kids,i hate that paint job


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2004)

its sad really


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 3, 2004)

very, i wonder if they knew what they were destroying?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 3, 2004)

> Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:18 pm Post subject:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....it was the first plane in the 8th airforce to finish its tour of duty


which it completed on my b-day =P may 17 =P i feel special now...  but then again nothing ever happens on my bday so i do feel special =P


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 4, 2004)




----------



## Viper (Mar 5, 2004)

Its sad that there is only two flying lancs and 18 in total,2 are near were i live


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 6, 2004)

shows how much people care about lancs... there arent a HUGE number of flying b17s but there are a lot more than 2 and same with the remaininig number of them


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 6, 2004)

but they made more B-17's


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 6, 2004)

yup, they had to make more b-17's tough, and the lanc will tell you why 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 6, 2004)

well b17s were better and tougher! hell the luftwaffe even fixed crashed ones and used them in KG200/1 as Dornier 200's! ya i bet u didnt know that =P for ppl who might doubt this, go here http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/luftwaffe/transport/do200/do200.html


----------



## Viper (Mar 6, 2004)

it doesnt matter lanc how many airplanes were made,it depend who wants them around after the war,up here they just didnt want them and they scapped them for pots and pans ect. they had to make the 17 tough to cut the slack made up from the lancaster


----------



## Viper (Mar 6, 2004)

some of the stuff the 17 had to put up with.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 7, 2004)

funnily enough, i've read an article about the B-17 in the middle pic, it was shot because it left the protection of it's formation, and it never droped it's bombs in the end.........................


----------



## Archer (Mar 7, 2004)

I read an article about a P-61 that was ordered to shoot down a B-29. 

When the P-61 formed up on the right side it looked perfectly fine, but the crew were waving frantically. They moved to the left side and saw the problem...half the cockpit was missing and the pilot was exposed due to the damage to the nose. The P-61 led them back to Iwo jima I think it was and they bailed out, but the B-29 kept flying straight and level. They got the order to shoot it down and used all their ammunition on it, mostly concentrated on the left wing, and once they finished shooting it took a bit before it banked to the left into a death spiral. As one of the crew said, it was somewhat humiliating to almost be beaten by an unmanned B-29 within sight of Iwo


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 7, 2004)

For me the B-17 fortress has to have been better than the lancaster. The plane served in just about every combat area in the war and often damaged ones were just patched up and sent back out. it did a great job bombing the German industrial areas....and in daylight!!! Just look at the arnamants as well:-thirteen .50cali machine guns as well as a normal load of 6000lbs of bombs...Well it made a mess of the jerries!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 7, 2004)

> funnily enough, i've read an article about the B-17 in the middle pic, it was shot because it left the protection of it's formation, and it never droped it's bombs in the end.........................



with the amount of bombs a b-17 can carry, it doent matter if it dropped em or not  sorry, couldnt resist


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 7, 2004)

.....however i must make the point that the lancaster had a good tiem too....look at the dambusters....not to mention the load of about 20000lbs of bombs.....still i prefer the b-17...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 7, 2004)

22,000lbs of bombs if you dont mind....


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 7, 2004)

well i do apologise....i really haven't got much of an idea as to what i am going on about as bronzewhaler will quite happily tell you. With 22000llbs of bombs whats a little mistake of 2000lbs gonna do


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 7, 2004)

I must say JJ1982 has made some excellent points - the B-17 did have a reputation of being able to take a tremendous amount of damage (i beleive it too - i've seen some of the nightmarish pictures taken of B-17's returning home on one engine with half the tail missing!

Also their speed and range was excellent with very effective anti-fighter defenses 

but you can't right off the lancaster which also had its advantages - it too had a good speed (excellent, reliable engines) good ceiling, good range - its armament wasn't great with no waist gunners or underbelly defences but its bombload was devastating and of course it was used for all sorts of bombing raids (noteably the bouncing bombs and tallboys etc...i can imagine that if we had dropped a nuke on the Nazis (we can only dream...) it would have been a lancaster that would have done it 8) i love them both - both great bombers


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 8, 2004)

> its armament wasn't great with no waist gunners or underbelly defences



that was only because the bomb bay was so huge, there wasn't enough room................................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 8, 2004)

bronzewhaler really does put across some excellent points sometmes, makes me wanna cry  wish i was that intelligent


----------



## Viper (Mar 8, 2004)

in order to make it to the target,the plane needs to fend off enemys,to do this you need armermeant. If there is none it doesnt matter how many bombs you can hold. And it also makes it so you cant get around in the plane belive me when i went in a lanc i had to duck down


----------



## Viper (Mar 8, 2004)

the bomb bay was massive,just huge,you could fit a small car inside


----------



## Viper (Mar 8, 2004)

but in the b-17,it was filled with so many guns and crew positions that there wasnt a really big bomb bay,but inside it is layed out way better than a lanc inside,the whole plane is layed out better,its way bigger in a 17 than a lancaster


----------



## Viper (Mar 8, 2004)

hot space??were did my mustang thread go??????


----------



## Viper (Mar 10, 2004)

i want an answer,lol


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 10, 2004)

> i can imagine that if we had dropped a nuke on the Nazis (we can only dream...) it would have been a lancaster that would have done it


nope! the yanks and their B-29 woulda done it!  

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## Viper (Mar 10, 2004)

wrong it so would have been a b-29,a lanc ya right!!!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 11, 2004)

Viper said:


> wrong it so would have been a b-29,a lanc ya right!!!



My god - your ignorance knows no bounds does it? tell me Viper - do you EVER have a clue what you're going on about? the Lancaster was ranked by experts the world over - not to mention the crews who used them, who lets face it know more than any of us do (and certainly you) as one of the best bombers of the entire war - so for you to stand there and say it wasn't that good is truly the words of someone who really doesn't have a clue - sad but true


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 11, 2004)

Viper said:


> in order to make it to the target,the plane needs to fend off enemys,to do this you need armermeant. If there is none it doesnt matter how many bombs you can hold. And it also makes it so you cant get around in the plane belive me when i went in a lanc i had to duck down



stop going on about the B-17 as if it was indestrucable - they got shot down in their thousands - plus have you ever actually been inside a B-17 - i have and if you think a lanc is cramped you should see a B-17 - you practically have to crawl to get inside anywhere - i bet half the time they got shot down cos the pilot got concussion from banging his bloody head!

Plus are you forgetting one of the best bombers of the war was the DH Mosquito - which by the way was made of wood and had NO ARMOUR or defensive turrets - so once again - you've been proved horribly wrong 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 11, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> bronzewhaler really does put across some excellent points sometmes, makes me wanna cry  wish i was that intelligent



Cheers mate! its not a question of intelligence i've just had an interest for years...at the risk of sounding really old - probably since i was only a few years younger than yourself oops: god, old man!) so don't worry soon you'll be telling this lot off about their lack of knowledge in no time! (although i must say - most people on this site know exactly what they're talking about...its just a few that spoil it for the rest...*cough* viper! *cough*


Cheers


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 11, 2004)

welcome 8) so i spoil it for the rest do i? there i go, complementing you on your intelligence and you throw it back in me face!  only joking mate 8) i know i dont know a lot bout planes but i do me best 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 11, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> welcome 8) so i spoil it for the rest do i? there i go, complementing you on your intelligence and you throw it back in me face!  only joking mate 8) i know i dont know a lot bout planes but i do me best 8)



You're trying to learn - which is what counts - unlike some of the guys here who just mouth off to get a response by the way i meant to ask just for the record...are there any women on this forum at all (i know its unlikely and no i'm not trying to get some phone numbers  )


----------



## Viper (Mar 11, 2004)

wut are we talkin bout?? to lazy to read


----------



## Viper (Mar 11, 2004)

whaler you have an problem with your attitude,i have a name for people like you but it would get me in trouble....yes i have been in a 17(sentimental journey) NO i dont think they were idestuctable,they were completely killable,im not a qweer,just ignore me then and stop being such a ass.i say the lanc had little armourment and if it bombed in the day it would be slaughterd! and IVE BEEN IN A LANC 5 TIMES SO SHUTUP,PROLLY MORE THAN U EVER WILL !!! just calm down and just shutup,ur opinions are so hot either


----------



## Viper (Mar 11, 2004)

there is one an hour from were i live in a museum,ill give u the site if u want it


----------



## Viper (Mar 11, 2004)

the b-17 was shot down in the hundreds not thousands,and yes it was shot down pretty easy but the lanc would be shot down more


----------



## Viper (Mar 11, 2004)

you should just try and calm down,there my opionions so shut your mouth


----------



## Viper (Mar 11, 2004)

i like the lancaster alot,u havnt seen my posts obviously,yes the lancaster was one of the most classic bombers of all time but ive said this and lots of people agree,the lancaster was better bombing wise while the fortress was better as a plane,and i say one thing and your all over me,if you disagree with my posting you should keep your damm comments to yourself easpecially when they are related to me and what my intellagence level is


----------



## Archer (Mar 11, 2004)

Viper, you must really want to get your posts up today  


Anyways, I have a great idea.

How about no one makes any more personal attacks against another person and we all calm down. I come here (and everyone else should be here as well) to learn about WWII planes, and if necessary correct others to the best of our ability (including sources if asked for, otherwise retract your statements no one can find evidence of it - and yes it's because of the Corsair fiasco we have), not to read posts that are constantly calling each other names, carrying out personal attacks, flaunting national pride, ridiculing other nations, and various other things that should be done in private (or at least not here).

If you want to argue with someone about their sanity, make personal attacks, or anything similar (SINKA - this includes cyber-stalking  ), could we please have it kept in PMs so those of us who don't care whether or not you like someone else here don't need to wade through this crap? Or maybe we should get a personal attack and cyber-stalking forum made.

At least the spam Cheddar Cheese and The Lan Kicks Ass post is often quite funny.


----------



## Viper (Mar 11, 2004)

i agree,but i am getting alot of posts lol,if he wants to diss me he should do it over messenger not over a forum were everybody can see


----------



## Viper (Mar 11, 2004)

and this is in the thread i created! i meant for this to be friendly argueing not frigen dissing people,whaler if you want to diss make your own thread,before whaler came we were all good


----------



## Archer (Mar 11, 2004)

B-17 = best day bomber*
Lancaster = best night bomber*

* Excluding B-29s


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 11, 2004)

did B-29's bomb at night? (if they did they were the best for sure)

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 11, 2004)

NO! Wait i remember now! they did and Schrage Musik was used on them by the japes!

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2004)

i admit the lanc didn't have the best defensive armourment, but lancaster pilots did have an ace up their sleves, it was kalle the corkscrew, it was basically a series of dives, climbs and turns so the attacking fighter found in VERY hard to aim well and shoot, and this was possible because the lancaster was suprisingly manouverable for a plane that size.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 13, 2004)

yeah thas true actally, about the manoeverability


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2004)

thanks.......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 13, 2004)

why do dots when you can do 8) ?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2004)

cos dots are better.......................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 14, 2004)

Viper said:


> the b-17 was shot down in the hundreds not thousands,and yes it was shot down pretty easy but the lanc would be shot down more



The Lancaster commanders had the sense to fly night-time raids not raids in broad daylight! a relatively slow plane like the B-17 (by 'slow' i mean compared to a fighter) would had to have had the armament it did have merely to fend off the fighters attacking! thats why the yanks suffered more losses in their bombers than we did - daylight raids? suicide raids more like!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2004)

thank you, and like i say, the Brits develpoed evasive monouvers, unlike the Yanks who thought it was best to stay in formation as they thought it offered more protection


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2004)

so, i can get a 1-144 scale die-cast lancaster for £20, what do you think?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 20, 2004)

get the 1-77 scale one 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 21, 2004)

no such scale...............................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 21, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> thank you, and like i say, the Brits develpoed evasive monouvers, unlike the Yanks who thought it was best to stay in formation as they thought it offered more protection



   

Sorry Lanc...i know you're right but its hard to imagine an Avro Lancaster doing 'Evasive Manouvers'  8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 21, 2004)

ok, 1-72 then.........


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

i think that in the hands of a skilled pilot *British* a plane with more manouverabikity has got to be better than one with a faster speed!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 23, 2004)

Of course - but it has to have SOME speed otherwise by the time its turned the faster plane would be out of machine gun range


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 23, 2004)

of course, the lancaster had both amazing speed AND much armourment


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 23, 2004)

I think that the germans had a tecnique (well develepod by them anyway i thinks) with diving towards the big blue stuff in a pityfully slow plane.....then pulling back at the last moment so that the much faster plane had nowhere to go but in the drink! Quite a tricky manuovere and one that worked well in a plane with a slower speed!


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 27, 2004)

Getting back to it , Lanc is right - I think it took balls to fly both aircraft, day or night, but the Lancaster also helped break in the Pathfinder Force , which eventually led to really laying to waste any target Bomber Command went for. To get down and mark targets in all-weather at night was a feat that was only surpassed by the faster Mosquitos that took on that Pathfinder work as the Light-night-strike-force. Also, after D-Day , Monty had Bomber Command Lancasters doing DAYLIGHT raids just in front of the advancing allied forces. The Lancasters were used as specialist forces too , like 617 Sqn.; Dams, Tirpitz, U-boat pens and generally leaving bloody great craters 'round Germany...My only regret was they didn't start using .50 cal guns till later- and the 'Corkscrew' manoeuvre was a life-saver. B17's were better-armed and it was real skill to fly such close-formation in protective boxes- alotta lives lost though, for a lesser tonnage of bombs- I think Germany lost the war partly from sleep-deprivation due to the efforts of both Allies....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2004)

you make some very good points, and i agree, if one B-17 got shot down it had double the number of men on board a lancaster, which is a bad thing...................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 29, 2004)

It is for the men onboard!


----------



## Hugh Janus (Mar 30, 2004)

what crap aircraft to compare, the heinkel he-111 was undoubtedly the best bomber of the war


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 30, 2004)

Perhaps the He111 did drop a respectable amount of bombs etc. and I concede that both the He111 and Ju88 were the backbone of the German Bomber Force, in fact they were excellent aircraft to fly and loved by their crews- the Ju88 was fast too, and multi-role; BUT, collectively, RAF Bomber Command dropped nearly 500,000 Tons of bombs on Germany from October 1942 to March 1945 , and the Lancaster being the main production bomber over that period, it has to be the Best Bomber of the War. The B17 was a fine aircraft , and in no way do I negate the job they did, or the B24 for that matter, but the 8th AF didn't come near the tonnage dropped by RAF. In fact , the Allies couldn't have done it without the USAAF involvement - Where Germany bombed Britain first by day, they got shredded in the BoB, so they turned to night-bombing and it wasn't a large volume of bombs dropped- RAF Nightfighters made it difficult for them, Dr. R.V. Jones figured-out how to bend their 'KNICKLEBEIN' beam radar bombing-aid, so they shifted to fast bombers like Ju88's, Fw190's etc.-'sneak-raiders'- but eventually Germany was on the defence, their Nightfighter Force trying to cope with 1000+ RAF Bomber-raids.... So Lancaster IT IS !


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 30, 2004)

I agree - I think the Lancaster was one of the finest bombers of WW2 - as well as the Halifax, DH Mosquito, B-25, B-17, Skua, B-29 and IL2


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 31, 2004)

my favourite bomber is the he-177, closely followed by the vickers windsor 8) those 2 plnes had it all, speed, range, payload, the lot!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 3, 2004)

But nowhere near as good as a Lancaster bomber or dare I say it...a B-17


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 3, 2004)

and what am i saying, the P.108 is my fave bomber 8) i mean the 177 and windsor are 2 of my favourites 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2004)

the lancaster is easily the best plane, and does anyone else think Gemhorse is a girl?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 3, 2004)

ora really camp bloke 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2004)

i never thought of it that way..........................


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2004)

i never thought of it that way..........................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 4, 2004)

you wouldnt 8)


----------



## ahanswurst (Apr 4, 2004)

I will always consider the B-17 a better aircraft then the Lancaster. One thing I just found out that the Lancaster used a pneumatic system for it brakes while the B-17 used hydraulic brakes. The article said there were lots of ground accidents when this pneumatic brake system was shot out during a raid. Any ideas why pneumatic instead of Hydraulic. I also wonder if the Lancasters used the Lucas (Goddess of darkness) carbon pile voltage regulators on their aircraft. It must have been hard to bomb at night and have the guage lights flicker off and on ?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2004)

this is what ive always said - as a bomber, the lancaster was much better, but as an all-round plane, the b-17 was the superior plane 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 5, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> the lancaster is easily the best plane, and does anyone else think Gemhorse is a girl?



Nah, there were only 2 girls on this site and they've both left now it seems...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2004)

yup, sorry lanc........


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2004)




----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 12, 2004)

Lanc...do you think the Lancaster would suffer the same losses as the B-17 if the Lanc flew in daytime raids rather than night-time raids? and if not...why not?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 14, 2004)

i think it would have suffered heavier losses, less defences 8) even though it was manoeverable, i think the losses would be heavier


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 14, 2004)

So therefore you think the B-17 was a better aircraft...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2004)

> Lanc...do you think the Lancaster would suffer the same losses as the B-17 if the Lanc flew in daytime raids rather than night-time raids? and if not...why not?



depends if we had fighter escort, remember the B-17 could only play a major part in the bombing campaing once the 'stang came into use...........


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 15, 2004)

No fighter escort - on its own

I agree with C.C - the lancaster had fewer defences and it was bigger than the B-17 so I'm convincved the Lancaster would suffer heavier losses


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 15, 2004)

> So therefore you think the B-17 was a better aircraft...



yes i do 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2004)

> it was bigger than the B-17



no it wasn't.............



> the lancaster had fewer defences




yes but they had the corkscrew, just because it wasn't listed as a defence, doesn't mean it doesn't exist................


----------



## brad (Apr 15, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> crap crap crap crap CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (the B-17, not lancaster)





we did not think it would be the lancaster when you say some thing like that


----------



## brad (Apr 15, 2004)

lancaster was way better !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.


----------



## brad (Apr 15, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > it was bigger than the B-17
> 
> 
> 
> ...




look lets all agree that the lanc is better


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 15, 2004)

how about we dont, everyone has their own ideas and the general (sane) idea is that the B-17 is better


----------



## brad (Apr 16, 2004)

no it is not


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 16, 2004)

yes it was, i may have beena bit indecsive about this in the past but ill say it:

THE B-17 IS A BETTER PLANE THAN THE LANCASTER


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 16, 2004)

NO IT'S NOT........................


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 18, 2004)

Well, my lady says I'm a BIG BOY with a BIG TOY, so, sorry to shatter any illusions out there! - That's why I'm not online ALL the time...Back to the topic, y'know AIRCRAFT???- Sensibly, the Brits bombed by night, in camoflage, and dreamed-up Radar to assist them, and had manoevres to protect themselves- An ANZAC survivor stated on TV here tonite, the Germans bombed, we ducked - the Brits bombed, they ducked - When the US bombed, we ALL ducked...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 18, 2004)

, i can't blame 'em............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 18, 2004)




----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 18, 2004)

> Well, my lady says I'm a BIG BOY with a BIG TOY


thanks for sharing that gem ol'chap, we really wanted to know!


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 18, 2004)

Well I had to say something to establish my male credentials - I gather this became a topic because I indicated a welcome to a lady who visits this forum, and y'gotta admit, most females aren't into this type of thing - I find it 'stimulating discussion' to hear their point of view; my lady's into Warbirds, mostly from my obsession with it, but it's big plus nonetheless. After 3 marriages, to have a partner like this is awesome, I don't dismiss females outa hand...they are the deadlier of the species...and I've 4 kids to prove it !!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 19, 2004)

the lancaster's better than having kids.......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

well, the lancaster wasnt a necessary as having kids 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 19, 2004)

sure, what ever you say???????????????????????????????????


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

if we didnt have kids - no humans 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 23, 2004)

if we didn't have the lancaster, germans would take over the world...............


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 25, 2004)

They also did indispensible work at the end of hostilities returning POW's, dropping supplies to civilian survivors in Europe and giving the hard-worked groundcrews an oppurtunity to see what it was All For, by flying them around over Europe to view the aircrews' handiwork, flights they called 'Cooks Tours'...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 25, 2004)

and lancastarians in the berlin airlift............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

> if we didn't have the lancaster, germans would take over the world...............



so you're saying that the lancaster won us the war?  no, germans wouldnt rule the world, soviets would 8) no wait, soviets WILL rule the world


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2004)

> so you're saying that the lancaster won us the war?



not quite, just that we wouldn't have won without it....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2004)

that means the same thing


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2004)

no it doesn't................


----------



## brad (Apr 29, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> no it doesn't................


 i aggre with lanc


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2004)

i think youll find it does


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 29, 2004)

The Soviets didn't contribute anything to the Airwar over Germany - Like the Japs , they were adept at copying other nation's designs , until the got some captured German designers to help. Granted , early Lags, Migs etc. helped stem the German onslault ALONG with all the lend-lease the Allies sent them - The Lancaster's contribution to flattening Germany was huge, the USAAF complemented that.....


----------



## plan_D (Apr 30, 2004)

Soviets, apparently actually bombed Berlin before America, not Britian though. The Soviet TB-3s and Pe-8s were too busy slapping Helinski, and the rest of the Nordic and East European countries.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Apr 30, 2004)

I don't know how this got on the Soviets, but . . . 

The Soviet Union also bombed at night but their technology didn't even 
come close to that of the western Allies. They had nothing to compare to Gee, Oboe, H2S, and whatever other electronic gizmos you might care to name.

Back to the original topic . . . both bombers did a marvelous job. One thing I'm not sure has been mentioned, maybe it has, I'm new here, is that the Fort was much tougher than the Lanc. Just a thought.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2004)

yes it was toughter, which also made it bigger, and less manouverable, wheras the lancaster was very manouverable for a plane of it's size...........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Apr 30, 2004)

Yeah, the Lanc was a beauty in a maneuver, no argument there. A couple of other points to ponder. The Fort did a lot more damage to the Luftwaffe (in terms of fighters shot down) than the Lanc. Also the Lanc couldn't match the Fort for altitude. B-17s were bombing from 28,000+ feet while the Lanc typically dropped from 20,000 or so. Just food for thought.

Just to let everyone know, I'm not sure which was better. The Fort couldn't bomb by night and the Lanc couldn't bomb by date (at least not until '45 when the Allies had air supremacy EVERYWHERE).


----------



## plan_D (Apr 30, 2004)

The height advantage didn't matter because German planes performed better up at that altitude, that's why the RAF turned the B-17s down plus it was the B-17C they saw and it was drastically under armed.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Apr 30, 2004)

Actually, the RAF didn't have much trouble from German fighters when using the B-17C at its MAX altitude (somewhere areound 35,000) if I remember right. Of course that altitude opened up a whole new can of worms and I believe that had more to do with the RAF giving up on the B-17 as a daylight bomber. In discussing altitude I was leaning more towards the impact of flak than fighters. I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that the Lanc would be more vulnerable due to its lower altitude.


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 30, 2004)

The Lancaster had advantages nonetheless - less crew, much greater bombload, [ up to 3x a B-17] manoeuvrability [as mentioned] which in fact saved alot from fighter destruction, and it WAS rather hardy but not as 'ironclad' as the B-17, weight/bombload/range being the order of the night, and I don't think anyone accurately knows just how many nightfighters Lancasters shot-down, there was no way to see! As soon as they were attacked and gunners fired, the 'corkscrew' evasive-manoevre was effected... They also carried more comprehensive radar and bomb-aiming equipment, resulting in more accurate bombing - 61 Sqn.'s of Lancasters flew 156,000 sorties dropping 608,612 tons of bombs....together with B-17's from 47 GROUPS,[!], they carried-out 6945 missions, dropping 164,000 tons of bombs on Europe. To argue one's better than the other is pointless really: In tandem, around the clock, they succeeded in distorting Germany's production, incurring economic ruination and ultimate collapse of their ability to wage war any more...I like BOTH aircraft;- My countrymen flew Lancasters, at great cost also, and my reading of their deeds does allow a patriotic favouritism to colour my preference....


----------



## plan_D (May 1, 2004)

Actually the RAF did see the altitude as a needless advantage. And the armament left something to be desired. 

I agree with Gemhorse though, the many mainstay heavy bombers together crippled the German war machine...although German production increased every year from 1939-1944 until 1945. That's what you get for bombing cities...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2004)

everyone's been putting in good arguments, here's mine (again) the lanc had a much much much bigger payload, better range, was more manouverable, more versatile, to name a few.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

I like both aircraft and they were both great at what they did. An no one can argue that the Lanc had the payload and range combination it its favor. But it's accuracy couldn't compare to the Fort's until 1944 or so. And the Lanc never had anything in mass service that could compare with the Fort's Norden sight.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

that's the thing, it was the bombsight, not the plane that made bombing accurate, so you can't really say the B-17 was more accurate, and remember, we were bombing at night, it's harder to bomb a target you can't see..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

i still think the b-17 was better than the lancaster 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

The site was a big part of it but the design of the plane had to be included too. The B-24 carried the same Norden sight but the B-17 was still considered more accurate because it's design 1) allowed the bombardier a better view and 2) was a steadier platform. It was the design of the B-17 plus the Norden that made it so accurate.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

And isn't the point of a bomber to put bombs on target anyway?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

yup, and accuracy is greatly improved by bombing in the day, so why make a night bomber? if the lancaster had better defences and they had sacrificed the bomb load a little bit it would have been a much better bomber IMO as they would have been able yo have more confidence in it using it during the day 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

Even if the defenses of the Lancaster were improved the Brits still didn't have the long-range escorts that day bombing requires. And I think that the day/night combo of the Fort and the Lanc was a great thing. It meant no rest for the German defenses or the German populace.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

the hawker tempest would make a good escort 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

I suppose it would have. I know it's performane was top-notch and that it was reasonably maneuverable. I didn't know it had the range, but checking some stats it appears to have had a maximum range of 1500 miles or so. Anyone know what it's range on internal fuel was?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

i think that was its range  dont quote me on that though


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2004)

that is on inetrnal tanks, but what's the pint in bombing at day with a small payload and get it accurate, when you can bomb at night with more than twice the payload, and when you carpet bomb, you don't have to be accurate...................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

The point is being sure you hit the target rather that the cow pasture next to it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

yup, and its pointless escorting just one plane, so there would be formations which drop a heavier amount of bombs than just one lancaster 8) you know it makes sense lanc...


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

What's the point in Lancaster bombing during the day if the B-17s were doing it?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2004)

and a lancaster would do more damage at night tan a B-17 would during the day............


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Yes, they would.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

They definitely did more damage, the question was what were they doing damage to? It would be late in the war before Bomber Command could even begin to approach the levels of accuracy that the 8th and 15th AF were achieving.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

that was for two reasons, 1) the americans the norden 2) we were bombing at night, it's hard to bomb accuratly when you can't see the target, and remeber, you didn't aim for a cirtain building, you just bombed............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

And the Lancaster bombed at night because 1) it didn't have the defensive armament to bomb at day and 2) the RAF had nothing (until the Tempest) that could have escorted them. Even if the Lancaster had bombed by day, it's Mk. VII (?) sight was not up to par with the Norden. The Americans, bombing by day, were able to bomb a particular building (or at least complex of buildings).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

not true, when carpet bombing you didn't aim for a cirtain place, you were lucky to get to the city, let alone a cirtain building...........


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Yes, a particular building is a bit far fetched unless it was in the middle of nowhere with no other building around.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

you had no chance of finding a building in the middle of nowhere, and to hit it you had to be at low level...............


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

I mean hitting a building without hitting any others it would have to be in the middle of nowhere.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

ah, but that wasn't the aim of carpet bombing..............


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

But that's what I'm saying.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

But the Americans didn't carpet bomb (except for a few circumstances like Operation COBRA). For accurately dropping bombs, the Lanc (or any other British bomber) couldn't compete with the B-17 or B-24. That is why the Lancaster's load usually included a large percentage of incendiaries.


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

The Americans did quite a lot of carpet bombing although they did claim otherwise.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

There may have been some, but the US didn't set out to destroy cities until the B-29s started doing it over Japan and that was primarily because the Jet Stream prevented the kind of high altitude bombing they had been doing over Europe.


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

What about Dresden? That's a city, the Americans wanted to destroy it which they basically did.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 8, 2004)

you can't bomb accuratly at night, even with the norden, primarily because you can't even see your target.........


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

Ok. So we've agreed that you can't bomb accurately at night. That's an advantage to the B-17 (hopefully we could agree on that). That also comensated for the B-17's smaller bomb load since it's bombs were more likley to be on target.

Dresden was bomb by American planes, but it was also bombed by the British. It was the RAF that dropped the incendiaries that proved to be so devestating.


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2004)

The Americans still carpet bombed it, that was my point.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

The Americans did carpet bomb on occassion, but (in general) they did not practice area bombing in the sense that the British did.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 9, 2004)

I totally refute that the accuracy of RAF bombing as being inferior to the B-17 daylight raids. - The earlier RAF daylight raids with less capable aircraft than Lancasters, proved to them that if German night-raiding was good enough for Them, it was going to be for the RAF, who were getting a better grip on the Electronic side of Radio Direction Finding, to assist them to find and establish by Marking the Aiming-point for Bombing. - The RAF mastered the Art of Night-Bombing ! - Curtis LeMay, the American Commander of the US bombing of Japan, learned from his tour with 8th AF, that the RAF style of bombing at night , was the only way they could reduce the grossly-high B-29 attrition rate over Japan [and the lousy results,] later on, was by using the same lower bombing heights, with the same style of H2s bombing radar.- Furthermore, the RAF usually used a 4000lb 'cookie' blast-bomb with incendaries to create greater damage with accuracy, sometimes creating firestorms...Dresden was one of them, but it took successive raids to achieve this...but Bomber Command went from success to success once the got Pathfinding and the Light Night Strike Force going....


----------



## brad (May 9, 2004)

the lanc ruled


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2004)

The RAF had a great success rate, late in the war. And I'm not liking the way Lightning Guy is trying to pass on War Crimes commited by America on to Britain. We both did it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 9, 2004)

but the russians did it more than us.............



> Furthermore, the RAF usually used a 4000lb 'cookie' blast-bomb with incendaries to create greater damage with accuracy



the standard 14,000lb load was amde up of 1x8,000lb and 6x1,000lb..........


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2004)

Russians did more what? Carpet Bombing?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

I wasn't denying that America did it. American decimated several Japanese cities. Over Europe, however, the Americans did not have the general habit of dropping massive numbers of incendiaries like the British did. And besides, we are the only country to ever nuke another (and frankly that's a record I would like us to keep).

The Lancasters did eventually achieve impressive results bombing at night but not until late it the war. And I believe that the whole point of the "accuracy" issue was that the B-17's smaller load was not such a liability since it's bombing was generally more accurate.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 10, 2004)

I've already made two extensive replies to your statement Lightning, but they 'went west' and failed to get posted [!??] - The thrust of it though, is that both Air Forces didn't start getting it right until post-D-Day...'later in the War'... The Americans 'Strategic Bombing' was never proved successful, and only improved once Mustangs achieved Air Superiority. The RAF night bombing was accurate, H2S allowed them to bomb through cloud at night, which B-17's couldn't do during the day from height...The Germans bombed cities, so the RAF replied in kind - The bombing of Japan by B-29's used RAF technique, at night, after their gross losses forced them to, using not only incendiaries, but also napalm ! - the B-17 wasn't a very successful bomber, but it was a great morale-booster for recruitment earlier in the War, having first flown in 1937 - It's successive models became heavier slower, thinking to out-gun their way to targets. The Lancaster was a thoroughbred Bomber for night-attack, and accurate as Tallboys etc. testified; Even joining 4000lb blast-bombs together to 12,000lb could be seen as accurate in light of Target-Marking effectively...


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

Very well said. 
The German production did actually increase from 1939 - 1944 so, it proves that the bombing campaign wasn't going to well.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

Then the Lanc must be considered a failure as well. 

Yes the B-29s used an RAF style of bombing (thanks for admitting that anihilating cities was RAF style btw) over Japan but that was because the jet stream over Japan prevented accurate bombing from altitude. H2S was effective for bombing through cloud (the US used it as well H2X using a smaller wavelength) but it was rather late in the war. RAF studies from earlier in the war concluded that the average crew was doing well to get within 50 miles of the target. Even as Lanc accuracy improved it was dependent upon low-altitude marking by Mosquitoes.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2004)

i wish everyone would stop saying the B-17 was accurate, it wasn't the plane, it was the bomb sight, if the B-17 hadn't had the norden it wouldn't be that accurate................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

it might be


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

B-17 and B-24 used the same bomb sight yet the B-17 was considered more accurate because it was a more stable design. Furtheremore, the bomb sight is an integral part of the design.


----------



## plan_D (May 11, 2004)

No the studies were within 5 miles not 50. Doing well within 50 miles would be an awful navigational error.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2004)

> Furtheremore, the bomb sight is an integral part of the design.



think about it, if the norden was fitted to the lancaster earlier, it would make it more accurate wouldn't it?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

not sure, lancs bombed at night remember...


----------



## Gemhorse (May 11, 2004)

Another marvellous piece of British electronic aid was 'Oboe', which greatly assisted RAF Bomber Command whose main targets at the time were in the Industrial Ruhr Valley, 1942-43. - On Jan. 9th '43, using 'Oboe', they hit the Krupps Works at Essen through solid cloud with a moderate force of Lancasters bombing on the sky-markers - Hitler immediately called a meeting, and totally frothed at the bung, claiming 'holes in the cloud', but his officials were adamant it was solid-cover - All this was discovered in German records after the War, but not only H2S but Oboe as well, greatly contributed to the RAF not just shattering German targets, but their morale as well....Did you get that date, Lightning...9th January 1943. - That's about when RAF Bombing Accuracy started to come on line ...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

And Oboe was hard pressed to reach the Ruhr valley while a B-17 could bomb accurately wherever in went from day one of the war. And what if Oboe had been fitted to the B-17? Wouldn't it have been more accurate?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

remebr the brittish were (and still are) the world leaders in electronic warfare, we as good as invented it...........


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

He's got that right, the British and (As much as it sounds silly) the French are the leaders in avionics.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

But much of the electronic stuff the British invented during the war was enhanced by America. H2X was an American version of H2S but it used a shorter wavelength to produce better resolution.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

but would could use 1 planes to make an entire formation os lancasters seem invisible on german radar....................


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Was enhanced by America then, yes, but it again goes the other way. Look at the CH-47 Chinooks record the British improved that greatly, well actually the British improved Helicopters altogether with their rotor blades


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

And that's all because our two countries have maintained such friendly ties. And the much of the jamming gear developed by the British was used by American bombers as well. And you have to remember that British technology was a bane to them as well since German night fighters learned to home in on H2S, Monica, and IFF.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

yeah but on the subject of chinooks, we just spent £259,000,000 on 8 if them, the computers won't let them be flown above 2,000ft or in light fog, it's gonna cost about £240,000,000 to fix them...................


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

That's not because of faulty eletronics, that's because of lack of government funding, because they are tight. The Chinooks you mentioned have got half digital and half analogue because the government was too cheap to fit full digital. 
The Danish have the same system but with full digital and they work fine. 

The original Chinooks that we got (My dad one of the first six electricians trained on them) were fine, and then were improved greatly from such simple things as adding 2 extra winch hooks to changing the avionics. 

If the government had funded these new Chinooks originally it would have been cheaper.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

didn't know that, cheers...............


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

Yes, blame the government not the plane. The Chinook is one of the best helicopters ever and wasn't in need of much improvment when we got it off the Yanks, but we still improved it greatly.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 13, 2004)

Britain always stayed one jump ahead in the Electronic War, the cumulative effect of ALL bombing lead to the German defeat. - Also, the Norden bombsight was first used on 18th March 1943, and was linked to the autopilot...[ 'Look Ma, no hands...']... - I'm not an aircraft-manufacturer looking for a contract, so I don't have anything to prove; Just my extensive reading of Bomber Command's War proves to me that British thoroughness ingenuity, the old saying of ' British soft of hand, hard of heart' attitude, was what made their efforts pay-off - 'Bomber' Harris, C in C of Bomber Command wasn't into 'panacea' targets, just bit by bit, flatten them...He allowed the formation of Pathfinders, for overall accuracy, and 617 Sqn. to deliver any 'specialist accuracy'...- The 8th AF wanted to prove what the British had already found-out the hard-way, that daylight -bombing against an enemy who had Air Superiority wasn't going to work...so they embarked on their 'Strategic Air Offensive' - Meanwhile, Britain followed the 'dirty bomb-in-the-dark Nazis' when they'd given-up bombing England, and followed them back over the Channel , and returned-in-kind, times a thousand-fold, the bombing...The American Strategic Air Offensive indeed made the B-17 famous, by the blood shed trying to conduct an Offensive without first achieving Air Superiority...that wasn't achieved until much later, when a weakened Germany from two Air Forces bombing, lost Air Superiority;- to nightfighting, to combined Allied Fighters on daylight patrols, and sensible long-range escort fighters, like the Mustang [with a Merlin in it], P-38's, P-47's and Tempests....


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

A very strict, punishing reply. I actually knew all that but I never was any good in words, so I wouldn't have been able to say it like that. And I'm still saying that in 1941 the bombings were classed as a hit within 5 miles, not 50. 
50 would be just stupid, the Navigator must have been blind or something. 50 miles off course and you're lost. Might I add the Mosquito contribution to this, which bombed countless targets not just the famous ones.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 14, 2004)

Yes, thank you plan_D, and you're quite right about the 5 miles...there were serious navigational errors too, as Britain was on the back foot and had to do something - Both Allies were on the back foot initially, in their respective theatres, B-17's in the Phillipines copped it too, after Pearl...it was a hard slog to develop all bombing techniques for them, both Axis powers having Spain China [respectively] to practice on first...And the Mosquitos too - they really were a divine intervention when they became operational...[not like me to forget to mention them !!]...and the Havoc did also play a pivotal role earlier on too, in both East Western theatres....


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

I have seen the figure of fifty published. And that doesn't seem to be too ridiculous when you think about it. The Germans were very good about air raid discipline so you don't have very many (if any) lights on the ground to go by. You also do have any electronic aids that were developed later in the war.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 14, 2004)

we were, and still are, the world leaders in electronic warfare, like i said, we could make an entire formation of bombers seem to dissapear.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

but wouldnt literally disappear be more effective?


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

In 1940 and 1941 they weren't always bombing by night, plus navigational isn't a matter of seeing (Always a plus if you can though) you plot with altitude, speed and heading.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

Yes, that's called dead reckoning and it's extremely unreliable unless you have something to update your position from time to time. You have to remember wind speed, direction, variations in instrument readings. If you can see something on the ground (either visually or through radar) to update your position you can get off quite easily.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

Even then going off 50 miles would have meant you were lost.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

Did you mean to say "wouldn't have meant?" It wouldn't have made you lost, but I think we can all agree that a few thousand pounds of bombs dropped 50 miles from the target does little good.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

50 miles is a long way to be straying off course, even in the air. And they didn't stray that far, IT WAS 5 MILES!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 15, 2004)

the study (if it's the same one i'm on about) concluded that only 10% of bombs we getting to within 5 miles of the target................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

So if 10% where within 5 then my comment that the average crew was only within 50 miles makes perfect sense. Over a five hour mission it only takes a 10mph wind to push you 50 miles off course.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2004)

but a navigator can adjust his course to allow for that..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

He can if he is able to accurately measure the speed and direction of the wind (which wasn't always possible) or he can fix his position over a known ground position. The later can only be done with if the ground can clearly be seen (difficult at night) or through RADAR or other gadgets (not available at the start of the war).


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

Early war the RAF wasn't just bombing at night though.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

True, but they didn't have the escorts or the armament for that to be successful, which is why they shifted to night raids.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

Yes, but I was saying they weren't 50 miles off.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

During daylight no, but at night, over a blacked-out Germany, getting 50 miles off course is not hard to do.


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2004)

If you were trying to be that far off, yes. 50 miles off is a SERIOUS navigational error, meaning you're lost. Not only are you going to miss the target, you're going to be very lucky to get home. 
It really wasn't that bad, 5 miles is much more realistic.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 18, 2004)

Well, the interesting thing was that navigation was really tested in those earlier days...Also, as happened later in the War, weather-info became very important - Even with all the gadgets later, strong winds not accurately forecasted , could still blow the Bomber Force a 100+ miles off-course if not checked. - AVM. Don Bennett, who started-up the Pathfinder Force, was an ex-Flying-Boat pilot, used to long-range navigation, and one of the first things he did on taking-up the Command, was to give intensive Navigation Training to his crews...and get the best of what was then available of Navigation equiptment - this was in July 1942...


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2004)

Exactly, and 100 + miles was also if unchecked, I think they'd check it. And the bombing raids didn't really get going until 1941, although as soon as BoB was over the 1000 bomber raids happened, that's right a year before both Russia and America got involved.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 18, 2004)

So how did they check it? No Radar? No vision of the groung? And wind isn't a constant remember. 50 miles DOES mean you will miss the target but is not hard to do.


----------



## plan_D (May 19, 2004)

You use your brain, you check windspeed and and change heading to keep you on course. 50 miles DOES mean you've missed the target but they didn't miss 50 miles off target, it was 5 miles.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 19, 2004)

Not every plane was equipped to check windage. And you can't check in constantly. During WWII, navagational errors due to wind were corrected my updating your position by fixing yourself over the ground. That wasn't an option during the early days of the war. 

On August 18th, 1941, the RAF received the Butt report detailing bombing accuracy so far. The report found that only 1 in 4 crews CLAIMING to have bombed the target manage to hit it and that only 10% of the crews got within five miles. A quick check of the math means that 90% were MORE than 5 miles away.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 19, 2004)

i read that later on in the war a lanc was on a datlight raid and the navigator couldn't be botherd to move his cup, so he sent the pilot on a course around his cup on the map, another one took it a bit further and layed out a sort of obsticle course on the map, his CO was not ammused.................


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2004)

Ok, so 10% were within 5 miles, this does not mean that 90% were 50 miles off target. The majority would be between 10 and 30 miles. 50 miles is a long way off course, and you would be struggling to find your way home being 50 miles off course. 
If they are 50 miles off course when over their target, how are they going to find their airbase?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

Being 50 miles off course is unlikely to cause you to miss Britain (it's a big island as I am sure you know). Upon returning to base the bombers would have the advantages of ground controllers, navigational beacons, and (depending on the range of the missions) possibly sunlight to aid them. By original comment that the AVERAGE crew was only within 50 miles of the target still sounds reasonable if the top 10% were only within 5.


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2004)

Britain is a big island, but airfields were like 5 miles square at most. Being 50 miles off course, you've missed it. I'm still going to say within like 30 miles.


----------



## Erich (May 21, 2004)

I am coming on this interesting thread rather late but hopefully this will apply.............

what was the reason to remove the belly turret from the Lanc ? 

thank you

Erich ~


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 21, 2004)

The belly turret on the Lanc was similar to the early belly mounts used on the B-17 or the B-25 (if you are familiar with that design). The turret itself was rather limited in utility (traverse was only 100 degrees to either side of centerline). Additionally, the gunner had to site through a perisope which caused marked disoreintation and nausea. Plus his field of vision was very small making him next to useless as a lookout. Some Lancs, the Canadian No. 6 Group I believe, ended up using a manual .50 cal or .303 cal instead of the gun turret. It made for a much larger field of vision but precluded the carrying of H2S.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 22, 2004)

Besides that, it allowed the Lancaster to carry more bombs than B-17's...


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2004)

I think Gemhorses reason was the main one.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 22, 2004)

Removing the turret had nothing to do with it. Removing the turret, ammunition, and gunner saved a few hundred to maybe a thousand pounds. The Lanc being able to carry a larger bombload was primarily due to the larger bomb bay and the fact that the Merlins on the Lanc were putting out about 200hp more each than the R-1830s on the B-17.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2004)

it was because of the large bomb bay that there was very little room, the plane was 69ft, the bomb bay was 33ft!!!!!!!!


----------

