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.
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.