B-17, B-24, or Lancaster

[daishi12]

With regard to the original thread "B17, B24 or Lancaster" I would vote for the Lancaster for the following reasons:-

1. I'm a Brit
2. Lancaster had the edge in range to payload.
3. Versatility - Lanc could, and did, carry the dambuster bombs, Grand Slam and Tallboy. To the best of my knowledge the B17 and B24 were not tested with those weapons. Although to be honest the B24 did an outstanding job in the RAF Coastal Command.
4. A smaller crew - to my mind if an aircraft is shot down, the fewer casualties onboard, the better it is.

Admitedly the Lanc did not have the defensive armament of either the B17 or B24, but there was a different operational thought process. The Lanc few under cover of night, the B17 and B24 flew at high altitude during daylight providing mutual fire support.

I know that some members will give the arguments that the B17, B24 had bigger production runs, were faster and easier to build, but that just proves that the USA had the facility for mass production without having to worry too much about supply problems.

Similary there will be arguments about the Pacific Theatre of Operations, however the US had that pretty much to themselves, and even at the start of the war there was never a large RAF Bomber Command presence in the PTO. Any comparisons would need to be taken in the European Theatre of Operations to be considered valid.

I hope that everyone will appreciate that these are personal comments in order to progress a discussion.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Here we go again!

The B-29 was the most advanced, fastest and heaviest carrying bomber of WW2. the lanc a distant second. The B-29 was at least a generation a head of the Lancaster and carried the same bomb load as the Lanc almost 60 mph faster.....

I think you need to read through some of these threads....

I think he is talking about the B-17, B-24, and Lancaster. That is the title of the thread.

Now if he is talking best ever of WW2.....Let him have it FBJ!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

maybe this will help everyone

VERY HEAVY CONVENTIONAL AERIAL BOMBS

PS. I learnt somewhere that a Grand Slam hit measured 2.5 on the Riechter scale.

Thats a good site, thats where I got my info earlier on this topic.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

While I agree the Lancaster was better than the B-24 and the B-17 I will respond to these:

1. I'm a Brit

3. Versatility - Lanc could, and did, carry the dambuster bombs, Grand Slam and Tallboy. To the best of my knowledge the B17 and B24 were not tested with those weapons. Although to be honest the B24 did an outstanding job in the RAF Coastal Command.

While I agree the Lanc was more versatile in bomb load compared to the B-17 and the B-24. When in comes to actual roles the B-17 could perform more roles than the Lancaster. No matter how you look at it, whatever kind of bomb load the Lancaster is carrying it is still considered strategic bomber role. Overall the B-17 was more versatile than the Lancaster.

4. A smaller crew - to my mind if an aircraft is shot down, the fewer casualties onboard, the better it is.

That smaller crew meant more workload on the single pilot and less defensive armament. That is actually not a benifit of the Lancaster my friend...

I know that some members will give the arguments that the B17, B24 had bigger production runs, were faster and easier to build, but that just proves that the USA had the facility for mass production without having to worry too much about supply problems.

Agreed

 

[daishi12]

If I may, comment on your comments

"That smaller crew meant more workload on the single pilot and less defensive armament. That is actually not a benifit of the Lancaster my friend..."

is off set a little by my earlier comment

"Admitedly the Lanc did not have the defensive armament of either the B17 or B24, but there was a different operational thought process. The Lanc few under cover of night, the B17 and B24 flew at high altitude during daylight providing mutual fire support."

I do admit that having a second pilot to share the workload would have had advantages.

It is my opinion that with having three less crew means that there would be three fewer casualties in the case of the aircraft being lost. This can be considered to be a major advantage, if training time, experience and human tradgedy are taken into the mix.

Out of curiosity Eagle, could you advise which roles the B17 performed apart from strategic bomber? I know that some were converted to air-sea rescue and carried a lifeboat.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

If I may, comment on your comments

"That smaller crew meant more workload on the single pilot and less defensive armament. That is actually not a benifit of the Lancaster my friend..."

is off set a little by my earlier comment

"Admitedly the Lanc did not have the defensive armament of either the B17 or B24, but there was a different operational thought process. The Lanc few under cover of night, the B17 and B24 flew at high altitude during daylight providing mutual fire support."

I do admit that having a second pilot to share the workload would have had advantages.

Have you ever flown an aircraft at night, in the pitch black? Its a lot more stressing than flying one during the day. Now take a hundred more of these bombers and put them up into the sky together and have them fly formations in the pitch black. That is very very stressful and for only one pilot per aircraft, damn that really has to suck.

It is my opinion that with having three less crew means that there would be three fewer casualties in the case of the aircraft being lost. This can be considered to be a major advantage, if training time, experience and human tradgedy are taken into the mix.

I understand that, but in the end that is what is needed to make a somewhat better defense. These crews knew what they were up against. I would rather have the 3 more and have the added defense.

Out of curiosity Eagle, could you advise which roles the B17 performed apart from strategic bomber? I know that some were converted to air-sea rescue and carried a lifeboat.

Here is a list of B-17 roles:

Bomber (includes stategic, tactical, etc...)
Coastal Patrol
Search and Rescue
Bomber escort (gunship)
VIP Transport
Transport
Drone
Photo Reconnaissance
Trainer
Guided Bomb
AWACS
Electronic Warfare

 

[daishi12]

Thanks for that Eagle, the info is much appreciated.

I don't have a pilots license so the only thing I can say is that flying at night in a commercial aircraft scares the **** out of me

Having the co-pilot would have been an advantage, but I don't think that having an extra 2 gunners in the waist (probably armed with a single Vickers K gun or Webley.45 pistol knowing the RAF) would have given a big advantage to the survivability of the aircraft.

I think that looking at your list I'd have much preferred to have done photo recon with a Mossie, P38, or Spit

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Having the co-pilot would have been an advantage, but I don't think that having an extra 2 gunners in the waist (probably armed with a single Vickers K gun or Webley.45 pistol knowing the RAF) would have given a big advantage to the survivability of the aircraft.

When you are in the aircraft, every bit of armament is an advantage to your survivability.

I think that looking at your list I'd have much preferred to have done photo recon with a Mossie, P38, or Spit

I probably would have as well but the B-17 Photo Recon was designed to carry photo equipment in the nose and bomb bays that was too large to be used on the Mossie, P38 or Spit.
It was also disigned to be used at Higher Alltitudes.

 

[daishi12]

I've just found a reference to the Lancastrian (Civillian airliner variant) fitted with Rolls Royce Nene turbojets making a flight between London and Paris in late 1946. It makes you wonder whether the RAF might have developed a jet bomber varient possibly armed with the remote control turrets as found in the B29 or A26 Avenger if the war had continued into 1946/47.

I've only been able to find 1 image of the Lancastrian with Nene engines, that is on the RAF website - The Royal Air Force - History

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

A jet bomber yes, but not a jet version of the Lancaster. You would not have been able to get all the great qualities out of a jet bomber out of the Lancaster. She was bulky and big.

 

[Ken812]

Ok Flyboy, but if you READ the FIRST thread you will notice the B-29 is not part of the question.

 

[daishi12]

I would imagine that the RAF would have used the Lanc as a four engined jet test bed to see how much re-design would have been needed.

The 4 x Nene's would produce approx 20,000lb thrust, so if the canopy and nose are streamlined, remote turrets added at dorsal and ventral, manual tail turret with paired .50's, pressurised cabin, bomb load of between 6 - 10,000lb and a higher fuel capacity, it may have been possible to have had a long range high altitude bomber.

The problems that would have been encountered would have been the Me-262 and Me163 Komet. (I assume that armaments and engines would also be updated with the German aircraft)

 

[daishi12]

In response to your comment

"You would not have been able to get all the great qualities out of a jet bomber out of the Lancaster. She was bulky and big."

I can only say one thing -- "B52"

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Ok Flyboy, but if you READ the FIRST thread you will notice the B-29 is not part of the question.

Your right, my mistake - on this thread the lanc is #1 (behind the B-29 overall)

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i'm really not sure if i can be bothered to take part in this argument... unless syscom comes and starts going on about the B-24 again so in the meantime i'll post gratuitus pictures of the lancastrian in queastion..............

sources- various internet sites.........

 

[syscom3]

Still a tie between the B24 and Lanc

 

[Ken812]

Overall the B-29 is better, i can't deny that

 

[lonestarman63]

The lanc was and is a great warplane to be sure . Yet i find it hard to compare the different roles . If you say it is better plane in range and payload and maybe speed it is better. But put in a nother 5 to a guns what do you have put on more armour what do you have a daytime bomber so it would be slower and have less payload , i would think . so given that i cannot compare the lanc to the b 17 and b 24 .

The real night and day comes from the b 17 and the b 24 can compare that , and as i study and read the b 17 was by far the better warbird some of the reasons , i think are worth looing at.
The b 17 easier to maintain and there for more available for combat
The b 17 spent have as much time in the modification centers thus read for action in shorter time
b 17 combat sorties versus the b24,results in 40 % savings in personnel and material
Statistcal comparisons done at loss rate per sortie shows that the b 17 had a 35 % longer combat life than the b 24
The b 24 was the most extravagant killer of any airplane AAF from pearl to sept of 44 the b 24 accdents in the US resulted in 2188 deaths in the first 9 months of 1944 b24 did 6% total flying in the U S but had 26% of all death , They flew 5% less than the b 17 and had 105 % more deaths and 85% more wreaks
Had the b 24 been as good as the b 17 from pearl to sept of 1944 we would have had 230 aircraft 904 more airmen and saved about 60,000,000 that is a lot of money and crews
so i say there is a day and night between the 2 planes

 

[daishi12]

Thats a great pic of the Lancastrian w/Nene engines, thanks Lanc

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

In response to your comment

"You would not have been able to get all the great qualities out of a jet bomber out of the Lancaster. She was bulky and big."

I can only say one thing -- "B52"

Yes she was designed that way though. You would not have gotten great performance out of a Lancaster turned into a jet bomber.