B-17, B-24, or Lancaster

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

hello all,
I am part of a film crew, doing a documentation about bombings in WW2. We are looking for footage of a B-17 or a B-24. We thought that it should be possible to film a few sequences from a flight simulator, but we lack the experience to determine which simulator would be best. It's all about looking good, perfect graphics, beautiful models, perfect clouds, dropping bombs, sun and lens flare effects...
Maybe you could suggest a few titles?
Regards
 
I hate to say this but any simulator could do what you want and am suprised that you have to ask. A more likely question is where to go for the programming. Any manufacturer would be more than happy to help.
 
for punishment and being able to return it would be the B17 but best all around bomber is the lancaster it out carried and outclassed all other bombers of the time. The B17 and B24 could not match it in bomb carrying ability
 
While I agree with you that between the B-17, B-24, and Lancaster the Lancaster was the best, but you are wrong in saying that the Lancaster outclassed the B-29. The Lancaster was not even in the same boat as the B-29.
 
The Lancaster was the best in it's class, but the B-29 made a new class; the "Super-Heavy" bomber which was above and beyond the Lancaster in every aspect.
 
Yeah, I can see it now:

- "The British Lanc's better than the Canadian one!"

- "Is not!"

- "Is too!"

- "Is not!"

- "Is too!"

- "You're a moron!"

- "Well you're stupid!"

- "Go to hell!"

- "You first!"

- "I'm gonna kill you! AAAARRRRRGGGHHH!!!"





Well, maybe not quite that bad.
That'd be kinda funny though.
 
this may sit quite wrong with out English and Canadian friends but JG 7 vets have said that when they did encounter the Lancs on several 1945 day light missions they were easier to blow away than US bomber types .....

3cm is 3cm, anything it touches starts a fire or is torn apart ..... HEI "M"
 
makes sense to me
 
I find that easy to understand. The Lancaster's defensive armament and armour was inferior to the B-24 and B-17. JG 7 must have thought it a turkey shoot against the Lancaster, but they maybe didn't realise that inside the belly of their target was more than twice as much ordance than the American counter-parts.
 
Cant really compare the b29 to the lancaster as it was built after the b17 and 24 and lanc and had major leaps in technology.

Erich is correct I spoke with many war vets and they said once the germans went to upward firing cannon there was no chace of not being shot down. stupid really that if they had fitted her with a belly turret operationally, they might have not been the losses incurred.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
How did B-17 and B-24 formations avoid shooting each other?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
5K
Peter Gunn
K
B-25G and B-25H information on spent 75mm cartridges - through hatch or port?
Replies
14
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
N
How does Ural bombers(Ju-89/Do-19) compared to stuff luke B-17 or Lancaster?
Replies
1
Views
898
GregP
Y
Help Identifying Great Uncle's B-17
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
CATCH 22
B-17E in Europe
Replies
17
Views
2K
Big Jake
B
Menu
Log in
Register