B-17, B-24, or Lancaster

Glider · Aug 29, 2006

Good article FJ (where do you find them?) I found it interesting that the US believed the Ju89 to be better than the early B17 as a reason for developing the B24.
Personally I have no idea where they got that idea from.

FLYBOYJ · Aug 29, 2006

Glider said:
Good article FJ (where do you find them?) I found it interesting that the US believed the Ju89 to be better than the early B17 as a reason for developing the B24.
Personally I have no idea where they got that idea from.

Thanks! Gotta love the Internet! Can you believe that? I think it was based on over-exaggerated intelligence.

k9kiwi · Aug 30, 2006

Ask a ball turret gunner.

On the -17 the turret was hung on a wire lowered down into position after the gunner was in, and if he needed to get out it was a shyte-fight all the way. If his ammo needed resupply, someone (waist gunner or radio op normally) had to do it for him. (don't know about the later models)

On the -24, he just disengaged and rotated himself to get out.

The significant problem for the -24 was its thin wing, making it more prone to battle damage than the -17's, most failures occuring between the fuselage and the inner engine due to loadings / damage.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Aug 30, 2006

syscom3 said:
I have an announcement to make.

After reading more carefully the USSBS, they make a point of saying that the US 1000 and 2000 pounder bombs were not capable of causing destructive damage to many industrial type tools and machinery. And it seems only the brit 4000 pounders were capable of doing lasting damage.

Therefore, since the -17 and -24 couldnt carry those bombs....... I will have to admit the Lanc would take a notch up over the -24 as best bomber in the ETO.

It took you this long to finally figure out what every one else allready knew all along.

Oh and by the way the Lanc was a better bomber period than the B-24.

evangilder · Aug 30, 2006

k9kiwi said:
Ask a ball turret gunner.

On the -17 the turret was hung on a wire lowered down into position after the gunner was in, and if he needed to get out it was a shyte-fight all the way. If his ammo needed resupply, someone (waist gunner or radio op normally) had to do it for him. (don't know about the later models)

On the -24, he just disengaged and rotated himself to get out.

Huh? The B-17 turret is not on a wire. The whole gantry that holds it position goes all the way to the roof. That is why it needed to be dropped out of the airplane before a wheels up landing or you would almost surely break the back of the airplane. Take a look and see how it is attached:

Van Gilder Aviation Photography, B-17 Walkthrough

daishi12 · Aug 30, 2006

Excellent pics Evan. I wouldn't have liked to have been the gunner in the ball turret... a touch of claustrophobia would give me the screaming heeby jeebies..

FLYBOYJ · Aug 30, 2006

evangilder said:
Huh? The B-17 turret is not on a wire. The whole gantry that holds it position goes all the way to the roof. That is why it needed to be dropped out of the airplane before a wheels up landing or you would almost surely break the back of the airplane. Take a look and see how it is attached:

Van Gilder Aviation Photography, B-17 Walkthrough

I mentioned this before....

When I worked at an aircraft salvage yard back in the late 1970s we had one on a scaffold that was functional (without guns). If I remember I thought there was a means to either jettison the whole ball or have part of it split so the gunner could egress (I think this would be only valid with very small folks as it was impossible to wear a parachute while in the turret). Eric, do you know if this was the case? I'm 5'9" and could not get fully inside the thing.

evangilder · Aug 30, 2006

If memory serves correctly, the maximum height of a ball turret gunner was 5' 4". The ball could be completely jettisoned with a tool kit that is still carried in some of the survivors. It was hydraulically "raised and lowered" but it could not be fully retracted into the belly of the aircraft. For the gunner to get in or out, the guns had to be pointed straight down so that the hatch at the back of the ball could be opened. If it jammed, the gunner was stuck.

syscom3 · Aug 30, 2006

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
It took you this long to finally figure out what every one else allready knew all along.

Oh and by the way the Lanc was a better bomber period than the B-24.

Quite the contrary. I simply just dont jump on the badwagon just because everyone else is on it. Lanc (among others) kept saying the Lancaster could the large bombs. NONE of you had evidence that they were more effective than the smaller bombs, untill the USSBS provided the evidence.

As for the Lanc in the PTO? We know how the B24 performed there while there is no evidence on how the Lanc actually performed. B24 gets the edge up because it was there.

FLYBOYJ · Aug 30, 2006

Thanks! I remember something about the thing being able to be jettisoned but couldn't remember if it could be done as a means of escape.

daishi12 · Aug 30, 2006

syscom3 said:
As for the Lanc in the PTO? We know how the B24 performed there while there is no evidence on how the Lanc actually performed. B24 gets the edge up because it was there.

I think that the arguement that the B24 is the better aircraft because it performed well in the PTO is a tad simplistic. I am not sure whether the Lanc did or did not serve in the PTO at all.

To compare aircraft I would say that there must be similar numbers of missions flown, bombs dropped, aircrew returned to base, etc. In this specific instance where there is comparison between B17, B24 and Lancaster, the comparison should be taken in the ETO between early 1942 and VE day.

Unless there are some fairly specific criteria for comparison the thread will degenerate into "the B24 was the best aircraft in the world, ever, because the radio operators seat had 2 inches more leg room and an up and down adjuster"

FLYBOYJ · Aug 30, 2006

daishi12 said:
I think that the arguement that the B24 is the better aircraft because it performed well in the PTO is a tad simplistic. I am not sure whether the Lanc did or did not serve in the PTO at all.

The lanc did not serve in the Pacific

daishi12 said:
To compare aircraft I would say that there must be similar numbers of missions flown, bombs dropped, aircrew returned to base, etc. In this specific instance where there is comparison between B17, B24 and Lancaster, the comparison should be taken in the ETO between early 1942 and VE day.

In fairness the B-24s PTO and CBI (RAF B-24s) should be considered as well. In some instances the missions flown by USAAF, RAF, ad RAAF B-24 crews may have been just as treacherous as the ETO.

daishi12 said:
Unless there are some fairly specific criteria for comparison the thread will degenerate into "the B24 was the best aircraft in the world, ever, because the radio operators seat had 2 inches more leg room and an up and down adjuster"

That was posted in the earlier threads...

daishi12 · Aug 30, 2006

Hi Flyboy, could you please clarify CBI? (sorry haven't been on the forum very long).

I'm not denying that the PTO was as treacherous as the ETO, but in the context of this thread were there is a comparison between 3 aircraft, the comparision must be made where all three aircraft served, i.e. the ETO

FLYBOYJ · Aug 30, 2006

daishi12 said:
Hi Flyboy, could you please clarify CBI? (sorry haven't been on the forum very long).

China, Burma, India

daishi12 said:
I'm not denying that the PTO was as treacherous as the ETO, but in the context of this thread were there is a comparison between 3 aircraft, the comparision must be made where all three aircraft served, i.e. the ETO

In fairness to the Lanc, you're probably right although the B-24's operations in the Pacific showed capabilities not necessarily exhibited in the ETO.

pbfoot · Aug 30, 2006

The acid test in my mind would be which one the Luftwaffe preferred to face on equal terms
If I was a luftwaffe pilot the Lanc would be the prey of choice

daishi12 · Aug 30, 2006

FLYBOYJ said:
China, Burma, India.

Thanks for this.

FLYBOYJ said:
In fairness to the Lanc, you're probably right although the B-24's operations in the Pacific showed capabilities not necessarily exhibited in the ETO.

I think that in the context of the ETO, the Lanc has it hands down, but in the context of the complete war (including Coastal Command, PTO and Search and Rescue) taking into account numbers produced, the B24 pips the Lanc to the post and is in turn soundly beaten by the B29 as the best super heavy bomber (last comment to keep Syscom happy )

evangilder · Aug 30, 2006

I firmly believe that the B-29 was the best bomber of WWII, but following some of the logic here, the B-29 never had to go against the Luftwaffe...

Glider · Aug 30, 2006

The B29 was the best I think that is beyond question. We are after the second best on this thread

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Aug 30, 2006

evangilder said:
Huh? The B-17 turret is not on a wire. The whole gantry that holds it position goes all the way to the roof. That is why it needed to be dropped out of the airplane before a wheels up landing or you would almost surely break the back of the airplane. Take a look and see how it is attached:

Van Gilder Aviation Photography, B-17 Walkthrough

When I was in Paris last week I stopped by the French Military History Museum and they had a B-17 ball turret hanging there. Here are some pics.

evangilder · Aug 30, 2006

Good stuff, Chris. I always see them still attached to the airplane.

B-17, B-24, or Lancaster

Captain

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Staff Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

"Shooter"

Airman

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"Shooter"

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Airman

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Airman

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

1st Lieutenant

Airman

"Shooter"

Captain

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Attachments

"Shooter"

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads