B-17vsLancaster

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

The Soviets didn't contribute anything to the Airwar over Germany - Like the Japs , they were adept at copying other nation's designs , until the got some captured German designers to help. Granted , early Lags, Migs etc. helped stem the German onslault ALONG with all the lend-lease the Allies sent them - The Lancaster's contribution to flattening Germany was huge, the USAAF complemented that.....
 
Soviets, apparently actually bombed Berlin before America, not Britian though. The Soviet TB-3s and Pe-8s were too busy slapping Helinski, and the rest of the Nordic and East European countries.
 
I don't know how this got on the Soviets, but . . .

The Soviet Union also bombed at night but their technology didn't even
come close to that of the western Allies. They had nothing to compare to Gee, Oboe, H2S, and whatever other electronic gizmos you might care to name.

Back to the original topic . . . both bombers did a marvelous job. One thing I'm not sure has been mentioned, maybe it has, I'm new here, is that the Fort was much tougher than the Lanc. Just a thought.
 
yes it was toughter, which also made it bigger, and less manouverable, wheras the lancaster was very manouverable for a plane of it's size...........
 
Yeah, the Lanc was a beauty in a maneuver, no argument there. A couple of other points to ponder. The Fort did a lot more damage to the Luftwaffe (in terms of fighters shot down) than the Lanc. Also the Lanc couldn't match the Fort for altitude. B-17s were bombing from 28,000+ feet while the Lanc typically dropped from 20,000 or so. Just food for thought.

Just to let everyone know, I'm not sure which was better. The Fort couldn't bomb by night and the Lanc couldn't bomb by date (at least not until '45 when the Allies had air supremacy EVERYWHERE).
 
The height advantage didn't matter because German planes performed better up at that altitude, that's why the RAF turned the B-17s down plus it was the B-17C they saw and it was drastically under armed.
 
Actually, the RAF didn't have much trouble from German fighters when using the B-17C at its MAX altitude (somewhere areound 35,000) if I remember right. Of course that altitude opened up a whole new can of worms and I believe that had more to do with the RAF giving up on the B-17 as a daylight bomber. In discussing altitude I was leaning more towards the impact of flak than fighters. I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that the Lanc would be more vulnerable due to its lower altitude.
 
The Lancaster had advantages nonetheless - less crew, much greater bombload, [ up to 3x a B-17] manoeuvrability [as mentioned] which in fact saved alot from fighter destruction, and it WAS rather hardy but not as 'ironclad' as the B-17, weight/bombload/range being the order of the night, and I don't think anyone accurately knows just how many nightfighters Lancasters shot-down, there was no way to see! As soon as they were attacked and gunners fired, the 'corkscrew' evasive-manoevre was effected... They also carried more comprehensive radar and bomb-aiming equipment, resulting in more accurate bombing - 61 Sqn.'s of Lancasters flew 156,000 sorties dropping 608,612 tons of bombs....together with B-17's from 47 GROUPS,[!], they carried-out 6945 missions, dropping 164,000 tons of bombs on Europe. To argue one's better than the other is pointless really: In tandem, around the clock, they succeeded in distorting Germany's production, incurring economic ruination and ultimate collapse of their ability to wage war any more...I like BOTH aircraft;- My countrymen flew Lancasters, at great cost also, and my reading of their deeds does allow a patriotic favouritism to colour my preference....
 
Actually the RAF did see the altitude as a needless advantage. And the armament left something to be desired.

I agree with Gemhorse though, the many mainstay heavy bombers together crippled the German war machine...although German production increased every year from 1939-1944 until 1945. That's what you get for bombing cities...
 
everyone's been putting in good arguments, here's mine (again) the lanc had a much much much bigger payload, better range, was more manouverable, more versatile, to name a few.................
 
I like both aircraft and they were both great at what they did. An no one can argue that the Lanc had the payload and range combination it its favor. But it's accuracy couldn't compare to the Fort's until 1944 or so. And the Lanc never had anything in mass service that could compare with the Fort's Norden sight.
 
that's the thing, it was the bombsight, not the plane that made bombing accurate, so you can't really say the B-17 was more accurate, and remember, we were bombing at night, it's harder to bomb a target you can't see..................
 
The site was a big part of it but the design of the plane had to be included too. The B-24 carried the same Norden sight but the B-17 was still considered more accurate because it's design 1) allowed the bombardier a better view and 2) was a steadier platform. It was the design of the B-17 plus the Norden that made it so accurate.
 
yup, and accuracy is greatly improved by bombing in the day, so why make a night bomber? if the lancaster had better defences and they had sacrificed the bomb load a little bit it would have been a much better bomber IMO as they would have been able yo have more confidence in it using it during the day 8)
 
Even if the defenses of the Lancaster were improved the Brits still didn't have the long-range escorts that day bombing requires. And I think that the day/night combo of the Fort and the Lanc was a great thing. It meant no rest for the German defenses or the German populace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

CANADA BANS 1500 TYPES OF ASSAULT WEAPONS IMMEDIATELY
2 3
Replies
47
Views
4K
Dana Bell
D
Clear your browser cache
Replies
18
Views
9K
VALENGO
C
Signature in B-17 Book
Replies
0
Views
2K
CamaroDMD
C
M
Boring.................
2
Replies
24
Views
6K
Matt308
HAPPY BIRTHDAY B-17
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
wheelsup_cavu
Menu
Log in
Register