B-17 vs. He-177 vs. Lancaster (1 Viewer)

B-17 or He 177 or Lancaster


  • Total voters
    94

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

I think people in general read far to much into the defensive arguments on bombers, if trying to avoid interception speed and altitude are the crucial factors IMHO. For example take a look at arguably the Allies hardest planes to intercept. The Mosquito (speed) and the B29 (altitude). Obviously air superiority is the most important factor and even the heavily armed B17's were massacred before adequate fighter support.

Kurfust I agree that the Lancaster was a bomb truck. However in IMO that's what makes a good bomber. The Lancaster dropped a lot of bombs over Europe in WW2 and it gets my vote.

Personally I don't see the point in a lot of the 'heavy bombers'. The B17 had a crew of 10, normal bomb load of 4000lbs and a speed of 500km/h give or take, while a plane such as the Mosquito had a crew of 2 and could carry the same payload at 550 km/h give or take? Why not send faster more agile Mossies and save yourself the risk of losing 8 more trained crew members.
 
The B-29 was pretty fast as well.

It should be noted that the B-17 could fit in the "altitude" category as well, (technically) being able to operate at the same high altitudes as the B-29 (the B-17 actually had a higher ceiling), but the operating conditions were much worse for the B-17 crews. (particularly for the gunners)


The defensive armament vs performance argument for bombers is an interesting one in its own right, something I'm not quite sure on, but I tend to lean toward the performance side.

However, besides smaller, agile aircraft like the Mossie, you could still argue the "performance" issue for aircraft like the B-17. Given it's fairly impresseve speed performance at altitude, immagine it stripped of all armament, reduced to minimum crew and possibly a pressurized cabin. Performance and range would significantly increase, and the crew would be half (or less).
 
That is true, but they didn't operate operational in that specification. It would be very interesting. The only thing counting against the B17 is its payload. You also mentioned the altitude capabilities of the B17, was the B29 able to fly higher than the bulk of German late war interceptors? I know the Japanese really struggled to find a fighter with altitude to intercept the B29. I think the Germans had the perfect idea with the Arado 234.
 
You also mentioned the altitude capabilities of the B17, was the B29 able to fly higher than the bulk of German late war interceptors? I know the Japanese really struggled to find a fighter with altitude to intercept the B29. I think the Germans had the perfect idea with the Arado 234.

I don't see whay the Ar 234 would be a particularly good choice. The High altitude versions of the Bf 109 with the AS/D engine (and/or GM-1) should have been fine at B-29 altitudes, granted it would take longer to intercept due to the added climbing time.

The Me 262 (and He 162) would also have been quite capable of combat at these altitudes.

The Ta-152H, being specifically designed for use at extreme altitudes, would obvioulsy perform well there, though its high altitude capabilities were a bit more than necessary for B-29 altitudes. (its ceiling being ~15,000 ft higher than the B-29's)

The Fw 190D-11/13 (and 152C) would also have worked fine. (though few were built)


The lower altitude rated Bf 109s (without the high-alt engine or GM-1) might have some problems there. (the ceilig was still quite high, but the performance was somewhat marginal at 30,000 ft)
I think the Fw 109D-9 would be underperforming as well, with the A-8/9 even worse.
In these cases they would be quite vulnerable to escorts (particularly the P-47N, or P-51 with the V-1650-3) which had superior high altitude performance. Moreso the Fw 190's than the 109s, again with the A-8/9 being worst. (the A-8 absolute worst)



And on the B-17 in the 30,000 ft area, I don't know of the USAAF ever operating at this altitude on bombing missions, iirc they operated between ~25,000-27,000 ft. The British did attempt 30,000 ft runs (mid 1941) with their Fortress I's (B-17C) but were unsucessful at hitting anything, along with extreme cold leading to frozen guns. (it should be noted that these were fitted with the old Sperry, rather than the Norden bombsight)
 
I don't see whay the Ar 234 would be a particularly good choice. The High altitude versions of the Bf 109 with the AS/D engine (and/or GM-1) should have been fine at B-29 altitudes, granted it would take longer to intercept due to the added climbing time.

The Me 262 (and He 162) would also have been quite capable of combat at these altitudes.

The Ta-152H, being specifically designed for use at extreme altitudes, would obvioulsy perform well there, though its high altitude capabilities were a bit more than necessary for B-29 altitudes. (its ceiling being ~15,000 ft higher than the B-29's)

The Fw 190D-13 would also have worked fine. (though few were built)

The lower altitude rated Bf 109s (without the high-alt engine or GM-1) might have some problems there. (the ceilig was still quite high, but the performance was somewhat marginal at 30,000 ft)

I think the Fw 109D-9 would be underperforming as well, with the A-8/9 even worse.

Thanks for that Kitty I was unsure how it would perform against the German fighters. The source I have in front of me indicates the Ar 234B-2 max speed is 460mp/h (740km/h) at 26,250 ft. I would assume a plane capable at those speeds would be very hard to intercept.

I see the purpose of a plane such as the B29 or Lancaster due to high payloads, but as much as I love them I cant seem to justify the purpose of B17's. I understand they were designed to operate without fighter protection but this was quickly proven unrealistic.

Interested to hear your response!
 
Remember when the B-17 was designed, it wasn't really an up to date design by 1944.
 
Remember when the B-17 was designed, it wasn't really an up to date design by 1944.

That's the point I'm trying to make. With the benefit of hindsight, I believe it would have been better to produce larger amount of planes such as the Mosquito to fulfill the roll.
 
I have some old Flight magazines and it is very interesting to read the appraisals of the US aircraft being supplied to Britain during 1939-40.

In one 1939 edition the B-17 is described as being 'obsolete by any standard' (when the RAF was depending on the Whitley as its chief heavy bomber !!!!) and then goes on to make the astonishing claim that 'a B-17 might well be brought down by a single bullet'

:)
 
Personally I don't see the point in a lot of the 'heavy bombers'. The B17 had a crew of 10, normal bomb load of 4000lbs and a speed of 500km/h give or take, while a plane such as the Mosquito had a crew of 2 and could carry the same payload at 550 km/h give or take? Why not send faster more agile Mossies and save yourself the risk of losing 8 more trained crew members.
Because based on the technology of the time a squadron of heavy bombers still did more wide spread damage than a small number of fast moving bombers like the Mossie. And as far as carrying the same payload, it depended on the mission. A B-17 could carry up to 17,000 pounds on a short range mission.
 
Because based on the technology of the time a squadron of heavy bombers still did more wide spread damage than a small number of fast moving bombers like the Mossie. And as far as carrying the same payload, it depended on the mission. A B-17 could carry up to 17,000 pounds on a short range mission.

As I said, with the benefits of hindsight! I'm not doubting with the technology of the time that the B17 wasn't the best choice available. However I think with the benefit of hindsight it raises and interesting argument!
 
So, for example, had the USAAF used ~2x the number of high performance medium bombers (ie modified B-25, B-26, or the XB-28 ) instead of heavy bombers. It would still depend on cost too, the medium bomber would have to cost ~1/2 to be worth it. (in the previously mentioned "stripped down" configuration, the B-17 would be down to 4-5 crew members)
 
As I said, with the benefits of hindsight! I'm not doubting with the technology of the time that the B17 wasn't the best choice available. However I think with the benefit of hindsight it raises and interesting argument!
In what way? You have large 4 engine bombers that could deliver a huge amount of bombs over a wide area verses a small fast bomber that was designed for pinpoint attack - its a matter of tactical vs. strategic and in the end a strategic approach prevailed.

Additionally there may of been some cost benefits in operating a mass of twin engine bombers as opposed to 4 engine, but additionally the structure of the Mossie did not lend it self for long term longevity. Working with wood in the field is difficult when compared to aluminum aircraft.

In the end I believe the heavy bomber prevailed and in a direct comparison the Mossie could not of accomplished the B-17's mission and visa-versa. Also consider the B-24 was side by side the 17 on the American effort over Europe, in fact over all, the B-24 was more widely used than the B-17.
 
I have some old Flight magazines and it is very interesting to read the appraisals of the US aircraft being supplied to Britain during 1939-40.

In one 1939 edition the B-17 is described as being 'obsolete by any standard' (when the RAF was depending on the Whitley as its chief heavy bomber !!!!) and then goes on to make the astonishing claim that 'a B-17 might well be brought down by a single bullet'

:)

The RAF did NOT want to buy B-17s, did NOT believe daylight bombardment was possible, and IIRC even experimented with some 33-34,000 ft missions.

By the same token the USAAF would have balked at using the Mossie or Lanc in daylight missions.

It ultimately (national selection and commitment) to the best as combined air offensive did put a heavy strain on the Luftwaffe - much heavier than all daylight or all night strategic missions.

My personal belief is that LW does not lose air superiority had USAAF switched to night missions only. Escort fighters (with B-17 and B-24 as bait) were required to defeat German airpower and this doctrine would largely be ineffective over Germany at night.
 
In what way? You have large 4 engine bombers that could deliver a huge amount of bombs over a wide area verses a small fast bomber that was designed for pinpoint attack - its a matter of tactical vs. strategic and in the end a strategic approach prevailed.

Additionally there may of been some cost benefits in operating a mass of twin engine bombers as opposed to 4 engine, but additionally the structure of the Mossie did not lend it self for long term longevity. Working with wood in the field is difficult when compared to aluminum aircraft.

In the end I believe the heavy bomber prevailed and in a direct comparison the Mossie could not of accomplished the B-17's mission and visa-versa. Also consider the B-24 was side by side the 17 on the American effort over Europe, in fact over all, the B-24 was more widely used than the B-17.

I'm aware of that and not doubting the role of the B24, B29 and Lancaster. They are all excellent bombers with a high payload. The B17 IMO doesn't seem to have a large enough payload to justify itself, the key to the B17's success was its numbers.

However, other reading your responses and further sources particularly on range with high payloads I am willing to concede my argument and accept that I'm wrong that a formation of Mossies would do a better job.
 
While I believe the course chosen with the B-17 and B-24 were correct, It's interesting to think how much aluminum could have been saved if Mossies were used. America had no shortage of lumber and If the Mossie were built in the US a lot of metallurgy resources would have been freed up...

Perhaps resulting in 30% more fighter aircraft???

It's also worth noting that even if the allies used huge numbers of lower altitude mosquitoes the Germans would have countered with appropriate medium altitude AA weapons and less 88s.

.
 
I think the B-17 still had its advantages, (the whole performance vs protection tradeoff asside) the B-17 was a lot more capable of defending isself than the Lancaster or Halifax, and due to the characteristics of these British bombers I don't think they were capable of being equipped with the same kind of armament.

Also, I think the high altitudes the US bombers operated at also was necessary for the "bait" function for successful air battles of enemy fighters and escorts to gain air superiorety. At lower altitudes, it would have been much easier for the enemy fighters to get organized and attack from an advantageous position. (with the bombers taking much less time to reach) Also, flack would me much more of a problem the lower you go. Not to mention many LW fighters would be more in their element at medium altirudes (particularly the Fw 190s) further tipping the situational advantage.


And even though the B-24 isn't a contender in this list, I think the B-17 has some significant advantages. (though iirc the Liberator was cheaper and certainly more widely used)
I think the B-17 was more rugged (at leat in some aspects), easier to fly, better ability for emergency landings (belly landings or heavy damage with control dificulties), better performance at altitude (particularly after bombs were dropped), slightly better overall armament configuration, higher max bombload (and capable of carrying larger indiviual bombs), higher operating altitude, and higher ceiling.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back