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

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Still a tie between the B24 and Lanc

No the Lancaster beat out the B-24 and that was proven to you over and over. You just wont admit defeat.

 

[syscom3]

No the Lancaster beat out the B-24 and that was proven to you over and over. You just wont admit defeat.

It was proven that each had advantages and disadvantages.

 

[bomber]

It's a falacy to say that the B24 or B17 had better guns than the Lancaster

Most German pilots say that what put them off attacking bombers was seeing tracers coming towards their plane, they didn't have to hit... they just had to be visible....

If a plane didn't fire, then the fighter pressed home the attack...

Now it's been said that the Lancaster wouldn't have survived in Daylight because it didn't have a mid-lower gun... or as you Americans call it the 'ball turret'... but the Lancaster did have a mid lower gun which was removed because it was felt superfluous when doing night time opps and constantly weaving... If holding a tight daylight formation box had been the order of the day then these mid-lower turrets or even a ball turret would have been fitted...

Let also look at the rear gun turret... the argument is that the B17/B25 having 0.5 make it superior because if it's range.... but yet again we have to view the 4x .303's in light of the fact the Lancaster was fitted out as a nightbomber where spotting the enemy fighter only occured at the very last second, at which time you wanted guns that had a huge rate of fire and at that short range was more than capable of doing the job... ie bringing a plane down...

And lets also not forget that the Lancaster MkVII had 0.5 in it's mid-upper and tail gunner turrets..

If you wanted a which one was better.... pound for pound at taking the battle to the enemy then the Lancaster was better....

If you want to know which was better at bailing out off at 15,000 ft in a downward spiral.... then that's a different question.

regards

Simon

 

[plan_D]

I don't understand the infatuation in here with heavy defensive armament on bombers. The B-17 and B-24 both got shot down in droves without fighter escort even with all those guns. The Lancaster would have been just as survivable as both of those in the skies of Europe had it gotten the massive support of the escort fighters.

It was the escort fighters that carried the bombing offensive, not the bombers own guns.

 

[syscom3]

I don't understand the infatuation in here with heavy defensive armament on bombers. The B-17 and B-24 both got shot down in droves without fighter escort even with all those guns. The Lancaster would have been just as survivable as both of those in the skies of Europe had it gotten the massive support of the escort fighters.

It was the escort fighters that carried the bombing offensive, not the bombers own guns.

A Lanc in an unescorted daylight mission would have been even more vulnerable to German fighters.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

the americans themselves proved mutual defence doesn't work when they almost stopped bombing after unescorted losses became too high, any WWII bomber was going to get shot down if their attacker knew what they were doing, the fighter can pick and choose when and where to attack from in daylight, the guns did very little, it was the escort fighters that stopped the attacking fighters being able to pick and choose...........

 

[wmaxt]

I don't understand the infatuation in here with heavy defensive armament on bombers. The B-17 and B-24 both got shot down in droves without fighter escort even with all those guns. The Lancaster would have been just as survivable as both of those in the skies of Europe had it gotten the massive support of the escort fighters.

It was the escort fighters that carried the bombing offensive, not the bombers own guns.

Thats true to a certain extent but its equally true that the Lanc didn't do well in the day bomber mode. Further if it were to remain in the day bomber role it would need ~2,000lbs or more of up graded armor, crew, crew accomodations and guns to be competitive with the B-17 in that arena. That would have also reduced the bomb load of the Lanc to the level of/less than the B-17 which is often overlooked. According to the Lancaster Archive web page the bomb load on a 2,000+mi which required a bombay tank, the bomb loadout was 7,000lbs of bombs. The B-17 at 2,000mi carried 6,000lb load of bombs, thats only 1,000lbs difference. I don't see a great advantage here and if you couple that with the greater operational availability of the B-17 and higher flight altitude, the case can be made that the B-17 was as good or better than the Lanc.

The Lancaster was a great bomber no doubt, its greatest advantage was the size of its bombay enabling it to carry a wider range of ordinance.

wmaxt

 

[k9kiwi]

As wounded Staff Sgt. John Hill was helped from his B-17 bomber after a raid on Jan. 13, 1943, the commander of the 305th Bomb Group, Col. Curtis LeMay came up and said:

"Don't worry, that bullet didn't have your name on it."

"No," replied Hill, "but it had 'To whom it may concern' on it."

have a look at 8th Air Force Combat Losses in World War II ETO Against the AXIS Powers

lists loss statistics etc, the table on the casualties per aircraft position of crew is interesting.

 

[bomber]

A Lanc in an unescorted daylight mission would have been even more vulnerable to German fighters.

Based on what information ?

 

[pbfoot]

On the 31 mar 45 6 group bombers got mauled by German fighters the pilots where trying to get into a box like formation like the USAAF to protect themselves 428 Sqn and i believe 434 were 2 of the 3 squadrons last in the daylight stream and they alone had no fighter cover. Most of the attackers were 262's . I just read the article a couple of days ago but am hardpressed to find it as I have just been donated a complete collection of Airforce (RCAFA) magazines and have them scattered all over

 

[daishi12]

Hi Eagle, I was just giving you a gentle leg pull with the B52 comment, , hope I didn't offend.

I admit that the Lancastrian/Nene combination would not have made a good jet bomber, the thought was more along the lines of a concept test bed to evaluate performance. (and I would have loved to have seen what could have been done with the Lancaster) I think though that if a jet bomber was trialed in 1946/47 with the war still in progress, the Rolls Royce/Avro engineers would have worked with whatever was available at the time.

With regard to the defensive armament arguement there should be a recognition that the USAAF and RAF used totaly different tactical processes.

i.e. USAAF - daylight bombing from high level with in tight formations having mutual fire support and heavy fighter escort

RAF - nighttime missions usually at mid level using looser formations with not as much fighter support, (hoping and praying that night was your friend)

If you swap the tactics over so that the RAF flew day missions and the USAAF flew night missions the following would happen

RAF Lancs chopped out of the sky by every fighter that could be put into the air, USAAF B17's and B24's falling out of the sky when they collide because of the tight formations.

 

[pbfoot]

Formation flying at night would be impossible the technology just wasn't there

 

[bomber]

No one survives a 262 attack, no matter how good your formation is, there's going to be casulaties... the only advantage to a bomber was the very fast closing speed which gave the 262 pilot 1 or 2 seconds at best of firing time....

 

[bomber]

RAF Lancs chopped out of the sky by every fighter that could be put into the air

Ok................. based on what known fact ?

 

[daishi12]

hi Bomber, I comments were based on the fact that that there were 2 different tactical thought processes.

"i.e. USAAF - daylight bombing from high level with in tight formations having mutual fire support and heavy fighter escort

RAF - nighttime missions usually at mid level using looser formations with not as much fighter support, (hoping and praying that night was your friend)"

If the USAAF flew at night with their daylight tactics -- collisions
If the RAF flew during the day with their night tactics -- you have a loose formation without much fighter escort = planes being chopped out of the sky.

The point I was trying to make is that the tactics dictated the way the aircraft was built and used. It makes it very difficult to compare aircraft, unless there is a similar tactical doctrine.

 

[syscom3]

Based on what information ?

Common sense. The Lanc was optimized for night time missions, the -17 and -24 for daylight.

The Lancs never had to deal with frontal attacks or deflection shots. Only the night fighters coming from below or dead astern.

Plus the night fighters came in one ata time stalking their targets. The -17's and -24's came across squadrons and groups in coordinated assaults.

Plus the Lanc didnt have all the heavy MG's the -17 and -24 had, because it flew at night, where the night fighters had to get fairly close to it.

Throw in a single pilot, and the Lanc was far more vulnerable than the -17 and -24.

 

[bomber]

The point I was trying to make is that the tactics dictated the way the aircraft was built and used. It makes it very difficult to compare aircraft, unless there is a similar tactical doctrine.

But exactly.. and as such if Lancasters had been switched to daylight raids then they'd have been re-fitted as such....

It's horses for courses..

so you can't really compare the b24's, b17's or Lancaster unless you take into account the situations they flew in, and the design chnages that took place to optomise them for those situations...

But once you've done that.... the Lanc is still head and shoulders above either the b17 or b24.

Simon

 

[syscom3]

But exactly.. and as such if Lancasters had been switched to daylight raids then they'd have been re-fitted as such....

It's horses for courses..

so you can't really compare the b24's, b17's or Lancaster unless you take into account the situations they flew in, and the design chnages that took place to optomise them for those situations...

But once you've done that.... the Lanc is still head and shoulders above either the b17 or b24.

Simon

Lanc couldnt fly at 30,000 ft like the B17

 

[bomber]

Common sense. The Lanc was optimized for night time missions, the -17 and -24 for daylight.

The Lancs never had to deal with frontal attacks or deflection shots. Only the night fighters coming from below or dead astern.

Plus the night fighters came in one ata time stalking their targets. The -17's and -24's came across squadrons and groups in coordinated assaults.

Plus the Lanc didnt have all the heavy MG's the -17 and -24 had, because it flew at night, where the night fighters had to get fairly close to it.

Throw in a single pilot, and the Lanc was far more vulnerable than the -17 and -24.

Single pilot..... ?

The lanc flew with 2 trained pilots.... where do you get single pilot from, or do you mean single seat ?

I'd agree that the attacking fighter tactics where different for daytime vs nighttime , but your premise that the Lancaster once fitted out for daytime raids with fighter escort support wasn't as capable or supperior to the b17/b24 is erroneous.

Please explain in detail why you'd think that was the case and I'll answer each point.

Simon

 

[bomber]

Lanc couldnt fly at 30,000 ft like the B17

you're right.... but then neither did the b17 in reality