syscom3
Pacific Historian
If the B17 was ranked #3 in your poll, why were they withdrawn from PTO/CBI early in 1943? The B17 was a rugged aircraft no doubt, but its payload and range were lacking.
B-17, B-24, or Lancaster
- Thread starter elmilitaro
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Glider
Captain
syscom3 said:
You awnsered your own question. The question you asked was, 'why was the B17 withdrawn from the PTO in 1943?'
The reply you gave was, 'The B17 was lacking in payload and range'.
What was needed in the PTO, payload and range.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
So you should have put the B24 in front of the B17.
markvs
Airman
Please note, my earlier opinions are somewhat tongue in cheek, and, if I could find where the smilies have gone would give you a good dose of them.
In my opinion, the B29 should not be mentioned in such illustrious and attractive company as these fine planes.
The B29 in my thoughts, is a plane belonging to the nrxt generation, where things like form and "beauty" were totally forgotten in a rush towards ugliness.
In my opinion, the B29 should not be mentioned in such illustrious and attractive company as these fine planes.
The B29 in my thoughts, is a plane belonging to the nrxt generation, where things like form and "beauty" were totally forgotten in a rush towards ugliness.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Form and beauty? the B-29 was one of the most beautiful aircraft to emerge from WW2!markvs said:
Nonskimmer
Captain
I tend to agree. While the Lancaster will always hold a place in my heart,(and lanc will no doubt reach through the monitor and slap me for thisFLYBOYJ said:
) it wasn't the prettiest bomber in the air. Neither was the Liberator. The B-29 however was a thing of silvery streamlined beauty. 8) The B-17? Ehh...so-so.
Henk
Master Sergeant
So so my ass. Look at pictures of B-17 returning to base and I would say pretty great. I would rather fly in a B-17 than a B-24.
B-29 is a beauty and were way advanced for its time.
Henk
B-29 is a beauty and were way advanced for its time.
Henk
Nonskimmer
Captain
Yeah, s'pose. But then, I'd say the same thing for the Lancaster. It wasn't great looking by my estimation, but it was ok.Henk said:
Henk
Master Sergeant
Ok, yes there I would agree with you. I do not like the Lanc as much as the B-17 or the B-29.
It just does not do it for me, but it did have great things.
Henk
It just does not do it for me, but it did have great things.
Henk
Gemhorse
Senior Airman
Can't comment further, it gets censored removed.....
Henk
Master Sergeant
Henk
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
hmm... was the Halifax also used in the night bombing along with the Lancs?
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Yes, the ratio of Halifax to Lancasters on night bombing operations in 1943-1945 was about 4:5.
On March 31, 1944, Bomber Command servicable frontline strength (i.e. the number of bombers it could put in the air at any one time) was
532 Lancaster
370 Halifax
57 Stirling
63 Mosquitos
by June 1944, frontline strength had climbed to
856 Lancaster
809 Halifax
121 Stirling
297 Mosquitos
of which approximately 84% were available at any one time.
On March 31, 1944, Bomber Command servicable frontline strength (i.e. the number of bombers it could put in the air at any one time) was
532 Lancaster
370 Halifax
57 Stirling
63 Mosquitos
by June 1944, frontline strength had climbed to
856 Lancaster
809 Halifax
121 Stirling
297 Mosquitos
of which approximately 84% were available at any one time.
markvs
Airman
If you think that a cigar with wings is a beauty, then I am afraid that you guys are a bunch of sad puppies.
B17, how can you go past the curves and radii a, real shape not a tube with ends from a water tank
The lanc I admit to a :rolleyes person dosent look much, but what a plane. They just exude power, and the sense of the struggle that was the european theatre.
B17, how can you go past the curves and radii a, real shape not a tube with ends from a water tank
The lanc I admit to a :rolleyes person dosent look much, but what a plane. They just exude power, and the sense of the struggle that was the european theatre.
markvs
Airman
Hey just found the smilies, now I just have to copy them right 8)
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
never thought of it that way, but its nice cause it's shape is almost perfectmarkvs said:If you think that a cigar with wings is a beauty, then I am afraid that you guys are a bunch of sad puppies.
B17, how can you go past the curves and radii a, real shape not a tube with ends from a water tank
The lanc I admit to a :rolleyes person dosent look much, but what a plane. They just exude power, and the sense of the struggle that was the european theatre.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The B-29 is a streamlined beauty - who needs curves when you could fly fast!markvs said:If you think that a cigar with wings is a beauty, then I am afraid that you guys are a bunch of sad puppies.
B17, how can you go past the curves and radii a, real shape not a tube with ends from a water tank
The lanc I admit to a :rolleyes person dosent look much, but what a plane. They just exude power, and the sense of the struggle that was the european theatre.
markvs
Airman
Surely, if you want to talk speed, then you will, of ne3cessity have to intr0oduce the mosquito.
I'm not sure if my facts are right [ but then who lets facts stand in thee way of a good rousing discussion?] but I have heard it said that mossies carried the same or more bombload than the B17 for the same range, went a lot, lot faster, and only had two crew. Not only that, after dropping their load, they were a fighter with a fighters manoeverability. { Try looping your b29 then?]
I'm not sure if my facts are right [ but then who lets facts stand in thee way of a good rousing discussion?] but I have heard it said that mossies carried the same or more bombload than the B17 for the same range, went a lot, lot faster, and only had two crew. Not only that, after dropping their load, they were a fighter with a fighters manoeverability. { Try looping your b29 then?]
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
fine, lets see that mossie drop a nuke or firebomb tokyo at night
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
wmaxt said:
do you really believe that? you think that if the americans weren't doing us this huge favour by bombing whilst we were off plying around with stupid little ideas we wouldn't have done it? no, firstly you weren't doing us a favour, you were fighting for freedom in the same way as everyone else, secondly like i said if you weren't bombing we would still've come up with even more extreme ideas
NS said:
actually, with the possible exception of the mossie, she was
........almost, but not quite.....
the B-17 normally carried a really rather useless load of 6,000lbs, but it wasn't unheard of for them to carry a mere 4,000lbs, both of which are loads the mossie could and did carry, she couldn't carry them quite as far as the B-17 but she could carry them faster, and like you say, with 1/5th of the crew...........
