B-17, B-24, or Lancaster (1 Viewer)

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

The bomb laod of the B-17 was not so bad.

yes, it was, it wasn't unheard of for B-17s to hit berlin with 2,000lbs of bombs, normally no more than 6,000lbs, the lanc would go to berlin with 14,000lbs of bombs, and a much MUCH greater variety than the B-17, or B-24 for that matter.............

The US knew how to use the B-17, the Brits did not know how to use it and thus had to learn from the US

no, we learnt early on in the war unescorted daylight raids don't work, so we bombed by night, being american however they thought they knew better and sent off their B-17s on unescorted daylight raids, as a concequence of the high losses they almost quit their bombing campaign! we didn't need the B-17 for bombing, we had the lanc and halibag, the americans taught us nothing about bombing, and i would like to point out the B-17 was only "successful" over Europe with fighter escort.............
 
Every bomber over Europe were better with escort mate. Mate I am not form the US I am from South Africa. No, mate you did not understand when I said the UK did not know how to use the B-17 early in the war. The UK did not use bomber formations correctly when it came to the B-17 and thus lost a lot of them. Then the Us used the B-17 on a bombing raid wiht only a few bombers and usxed a great bomber formation and lost on bomber and then the UK started to use the fromations.

The UK started to bomb after they asked the US if they would bomb during the day because they lost so many bombers, so the US actualy got the shitty job.

Well your bomb load can be great, but if your bomber is not well defended it is not a great bomber.

I can see what you meen and I just said wich one I think is the best and I see why you say the Lancaster is your best bomber.

Henk
 
I think according to current military doctrine night is a weapon and its cheap and reliable,but when the Lanc was exposed to "daylight conditions" such as the raid on nuremberg on 30 mar 44 of 800 bombers 750 reached the target 97 were shot down and 12 were writeoffs it was a "daylight raid" with a bright full moon and low thin cloud below them as one pilot qouted " we were flying in a well lit arena with vapour trails clearly visable for miles where i rarely saw another a/c i could counted 12 on my port side alone" the Lanc was not at its best
 
sorry henk i realise you're not american hence when refering to the americans i addressed them as "them" and not "you", i never meant to imply you are american.......

The UK did not use bomber formations correctly when it came to the B-17 and thus lost a lot of them

Many were lost because they sucked, 90 sqn used the early models at the high altitudes they were supposed to work at, and even the oil that was supposed to stop the guns freezing froze! they were useless, hance why we didn't use them..........

UK started to use the fromations

the UK never used the big american formations, we used a bomber stream by night and much more spread out formations by day.........

they asked the US if they would bomb during the day because they lost so many bombers, so the US actualy got the sh*tty job

before the war both countries were working on the "the bomber will always get through" idea, we realised very early on that actually it's not true, bombers don't get through without loosing great numbers, hence why we switched to night bombers, the american's hadn't learnt that yet and still thought they'd be able to, so when they came into the war the RAF were bombing by night so the USAAF offered to bomb by day, and after some appauling losses they almost quit their whole campain............

Well your bomb load can be great, but if your bomber is not well defended it is not a great bomber.

remember not every bomber has to get through, losses are always to be expected...........
 
Well said, Twitch. I think this "which one is better" is kind of pointless. Everyone has their opinion, which they are welcome to have. We all have our certain biases toward one airplane versus another. The point is that all three were used to obtain the one outcome..victory. They all performed well for what their jobs were.

Henk, I think you need to read up a bit more on the bombing campaign over Europe. Someo fthe info you have posted is pretty inaccurate. Nobody asked the Americans to bomb by day, the 8th AF chose to do it. Losses during daylight raids were atrocious and as Lanc pointed out, it damn near led to the end of daylight bombing in Europe. A good read about that is "The Wrong Stuff" by Truman Smith. As he puts it, it was all a big experiment.

The fact of the matter is that it really didn't matter how much firepower you put on a bomber. It was slow and not nimble. The idea was that if enough guns were put in there, it would ward off the fighters. Well guess what? It didn't really work. Attack a B-17 or B-24 from the rear, blast out the tail gunner and you have free reign to bring it down. There are several videos posted here of that very scenario. Box formations help some, but you are still going to be screwed if you end up as "tail end Charlie".

What worked best in the Pacific? Look at what Curt LeMay did with the bombing of Japan. He took most of the guns out of the B-29s and bombed from low altitude at night.

Without fighter escort and/or complete control of the air, your bombing campaign will not be successful. History has proven that. Today, strike aircraft go in at night to remove the threats of AAA, missile and SAM sites and anything else they can find before the big boys come in. A lesson well learned and applied today.
 
Twitch, but you also have a opinion or don't you mate? :lol: My opinion does not stink, I can not smell it can or is my nose closed. :lol: Just pulling your leg mate. I understand what you are trying to say.

Yes, the thing still remain that the allies did bomb Germany so that did not have anything left except rubble. That is the sad thing of bombing but it was needed to get Germany onto it's knees.

The thing is that UK were better at night bombing and the US could keep up their daylight raids because they had the mass production to keep it up.

Henk
 
hate to say this , but ............. right on the monies gents. Too many silly comparison threads started : Which type A a/c is better than another type A a/c. what a bunch of needless crock and all supposed proved by schematics and facts taken from books.

who gives a frickin care. the Allies won, the Japanese and Germans lost. Each pilot flying an individual a/c in combat thought that theirs was the best...........no matter bomber of fighter.

geez I sound like a demon from hell ;)
 
evangilder said:
Well said, Twitch. I think this "which one is better" is kind of pointless. Everyone has their opinion, which they are welcome to have. We all have our certain biases toward one airplane versus another. The point is that all three were used to obtain the one outcome..victory. They all performed well for what their jobs were.

Henk, I think you need to read up a bit more on the bombing campaign over Europe. Someo fthe info you have posted is pretty inaccurate. Nobody asked the Americans to bomb by day, the 8th AF chose to do it. Losses during daylight raids were atrocious and as Lanc pointed out, it damn near led to the end of daylight bombing in Europe. A good read about that is "The Wrong Stuff" by Truman Smith. As he puts it, it was all a big experiment.

The fact of the matter is that it really didn't matter how much firepower you put on a bomber. It was slow and not nimble. The idea was that if enough guns were put in there, it would ward off the fighters. Well guess what? It didn't really work. Attack a B-17 or B-24 from the rear, blast out the tail gunner and you have free reign to bring it down. There are several videos posted here of that very scenario. Box formations help some, but you are still going to be screwed if you end up as "tail end Charlie".

What worked best in the Pacific? Look at what Curt LeMay did with the bombing of Japan. He took most of the guns out of the B-29s and bombed from low altitude at night.

Without fighter escort and/or complete control of the air, your bombing campaign will not be successful. History has proven that. Today, strike aircraft go in at night to remove the threats of AAA, missile and SAM sites and anything else they can find before the big boys come in. A lesson well learned and applied today.

Well mate I understand what you are saying and I have looked at documentary,s where they have looked into the bombing raids over Europe and found that the 8th Airforce did take over the role of day light raids after the UK said they can not sustain the the daylight rads and thus took over the role of day light raids. I must say I am sorry that I said that the UK asked the US to do the day light raids.

Yes, the US were excellent when it came to the raids over Japan and the B-29, but the B-29 were a flying fortress, but still without fighter escort all bombers were pretty unsafe in the sky.

The German pilots loved to take out the tail gunners and they did it quite a lot with the Lancasters in the night raids and during the day raids.

Well firstly I must say that if I were wrong I should say I were a ass in posting it. So please accept my apology, if I were wrong.

Henk
 
henk there are a lot of documentarys and books each one has errors to some degree but you have to sort the wheat from the chaff and there is least 2 sides to each war documentary some fail to show the other guys point of view on what happened . you live about about as far south as you can in SA
 
Well mate we do not get the great shit you do since 1994. Well I wish I could get more books. I try to get books that have everything in it, but they are not plentiful.

"you live about about as far south as you can in SA"

lol lol all most mate, Kaap Agullas is the most southern point of SA and Africa.

Henk
 
Ok, here is a question then:

Suppose that at the beginning of 1944, you have to carry out the strategic bombing of Italy, Germany and Japan.

In order to most efficiently focus your resources, you are forced to chose 1 type each of a 5-10 crew 4 engined heavy, 3-7 crew twin engined medium and a 2-3 crew light/strike /attack bomber:

Your choices are;

4 engined heavy

Avro Lancaster B. Mk I/III
Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress
Consolidated B-24 J/L/M Liberator
Handley Page Halifax B. Mk IV
Patlyakov Pe-8

2 engined medium

Lockheed PV-2 Ventura
Martin B-26G Marauder
North Americane B-25H/J Mitchell
Vickers Wellington Mk X
Petlyakov Pe-2 (M-105PF)
Tuploev Tu-2

Strike/attack/light bomber

Bristol Beaufort Mk VIII
Bristol Beaufighter Mk X
De Haviland Mosquito Mk VI/XVI
Douglas A-20G/H/J Havok
Ilyushin Il-2
 
Erich said:
hate to say this , but ............. right on the monies gents. Too many silly comparison threads started : Which type A a/c is better than another type A a/c. what a bunch of needless crock and all supposed proved by schematics and facts taken from books.

who gives a frickin care. the Allies won, the Japanese and Germans lost. Each pilot flying an individual a/c in combat thought that theirs was the best...........no matter bomber of fighter.

geez I sound like a demon from hell

we all know you're right Erich but that wont really stop us :lol: i kinda enjoy debating stuff like this, in the last lanc/B-24 argument i learnt quite a bit i didn't know before, and found it very interesting............
 
its annoying but not boring...
I'd choose the Pe-8 as my heavy bomber
 
Evan- you hit it right on. Combat is an adaptive, fluid thing that in no way is set or rigid if it is to be successful. Learning from experience is not done in a vaccum either. This sanitary comparison of mechanical combat machines and weapons is not Consumer Reports doing trials of washing machines. A large number of variable factors fall into play on any given day of combat to influence the outcome of a battle or single combat. Even luck.

We have myriad data to consider in concluding which was "best." There were more B-24s than B-17s yets the B-24 couldn't fly on 2 engines. B-17s did it regularly. Lancs in sufficient numbers (which is theory since they didn't exist) could have bombed successfully in daylight. Their defensive .303s were insufficient against 1944's determined Luftwaffe aerial destroyer onslaught and they would have probably had to have been replaced by .50s. OK. Could the Lancaster and B-17 have done as stand out a job in anti-submarine duties that the B-24 did? Guess so. Could the B-17 excelled in night bombing missions? Probably.

Is the "best" the Lancaster which could tote the biggest bomb ever? Is the "best" the B-24 which contributed to the demise of the U-boats more than any plane? Is the "best" the B-17 which proved she could still fly on one engine and bring her crews home? So by who's criteria must we decide?
 
To reply to Jabbors message, my choice would be

Heavy Bomber - Lancaster

Medium - From your list B26 - personal choice Do217 carried a larger bombload a longer distance at a higher speed, with a higher operational ceiling.

Light - Mossie

Comments on the Lancaster.
Some were in service with twin 50 in the Dorsal position in a Martin Turret. The turret was further forward but a shortage of turrets led to some having the normal turret fitted in the new position.
A number had twin 50's in the rear using either an FN82 turret or a Rose-Rice type. I don't know how widespread these were, but I do know that 83, 101 and 170 squadrons had the Rose-Rice Turret.
Most interestingly in the closing stages of the war a small number of Lancasters were fitted with an Automatic Gun Laying Turret code named Village Inn. This had twin 50's but had a self contained radar that tracked the incomming fighter,
The system consisted of a transmitter/receiver unit mounted in the navigator's compartment and included an automatic ranging facility which relayed range information into the computer section of a Mark IIC gyro gunsight. The turret featured a small scanning aerial that followed the movement of the guns, and a CRT display screen positioned adjacent to the gun sight, the image of which was projected on to the gun sight reflector screen via a semi-transparent mirror.

To use, the gunner manouvred his turret until the target blip projected onto the sight reflector screen coincided with the normal gyro sight aiming graticule, at which the point the guns would be correctly aimed, the inbuilt characteristics of the gyro sight almost guaranteeing a hit should the gunner subsequently open fire.
This was used by 83, 101, 49, 156 and 635 squadrons in the closing months of the war. Although in some cases only some of the aircraft in the squaron were so equipped. It was also used in some Halifax's where it was known as the type D turret.
 

Attachments

  • type_d_aglt_686.jpg
    type_d_aglt_686.jpg
    13.8 KB · Views: 176
Ok, now I see what you mean Twitch. Every bomber was the best in the little part they played in the war ( now pleas guys I said little but I did not mean it. They each did their part. ) So the B-17 could take a punch, the Lancaster could do her job during night and carry the largest and heavyest bomb druting the war and the B-24 busted a lot of Subs asses.

True, I must say now I understand, they all were the best in the role they played in.

Henk
 
The Lancaster could fly on one engine, y'know, Twitch ?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back