- Thread starter
- #101
B-17vsLancaster
- Thread starter Viper
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
funnily enough, i've read an article about the B-17 in the middle pic, it was shot because it left the protection of it's formation, and it never droped it's bombs in the end.........................
I read an article about a P-61 that was ordered to shoot down a B-29.
When the P-61 formed up on the right side it looked perfectly fine, but the crew were waving frantically. They moved to the left side and saw the problem...half the cockpit was missing and the pilot was exposed due to the damage to the nose. The P-61 led them back to Iwo jima I think it was and they bailed out, but the B-29 kept flying straight and level. They got the order to shoot it down and used all their ammunition on it, mostly concentrated on the left wing, and once they finished shooting it took a bit before it banked to the left into a death spiral. As one of the crew said, it was somewhat humiliating to almost be beaten by an unmanned B-29 within sight of Iwo
When the P-61 formed up on the right side it looked perfectly fine, but the crew were waving frantically. They moved to the left side and saw the problem...half the cockpit was missing and the pilot was exposed due to the damage to the nose. The P-61 led them back to Iwo jima I think it was and they bailed out, but the B-29 kept flying straight and level. They got the order to shoot it down and used all their ammunition on it, mostly concentrated on the left wing, and once they finished shooting it took a bit before it banked to the left into a death spiral. As one of the crew said, it was somewhat humiliating to almost be beaten by an unmanned B-29 within sight of Iwo
For me the B-17 fortress has to have been better than the lancaster. The plane served in just about every combat area in the war and often damaged ones were just patched up and sent back out. it did a great job bombing the German industrial areas....and in daylight!!! Just look at the arnamants as well:-thirteen .50cali machine guns as well as a normal load of 6000lbs of bombs...Well it made a mess of the jerries!
cheddar cheese
Major General
with the amount of bombs a b-17 can carry, it doent matter if it dropped em or not
sorry, couldnt resist 
cheddar cheese
Major General
22,000lbs of bombs if you dont mind....
bronzewhaler82
Senior Airman
- 661
- Feb 19, 2004
I must say JJ1982 has made some excellent points - the B-17 did have a reputation of being able to take a tremendous amount of damage (i beleive it too - i've seen some of the nightmarish pictures taken of B-17's returning home on one engine with half the tail missing!
Also their speed and range was excellent with very effective anti-fighter defenses
but you can't right off the lancaster which also had its advantages - it too had a good speed (excellent, reliable engines) good ceiling, good range - its armament wasn't great with no waist gunners or underbelly defences but its bombload was devastating and of course it was used for all sorts of bombing raids (noteably the bouncing bombs and tallboys etc...i can imagine that if we had dropped a nuke on the Nazis (we can only dream...) it would have been a lancaster that would have done it 8) i love them both - both great bombers
Also their speed and range was excellent with very effective anti-fighter defenses
but you can't right off the lancaster which also had its advantages - it too had a good speed (excellent, reliable engines) good ceiling, good range - its armament wasn't great with no waist gunners or underbelly defences but its bombload was devastating and of course it was used for all sorts of bombing raids (noteably the bouncing bombs and tallboys etc...i can imagine that if we had dropped a nuke on the Nazis (we can only dream...) it would have been a lancaster that would have done it 8) i love them both - both great bombers
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
that was only because the bomb bay was so huge, there wasn't enough room................................
cheddar cheese
Major General
bronzewhaler really does put across some excellent points sometmes, makes me wanna cry 
wish i was that intelligent 
wish i was that intelligent - Thread starter
- #112
in order to make it to the target,the plane needs to fend off enemys,to do this you need armermeant. If there is none it doesnt matter how many bombs you can hold. And it also makes it so you cant get around in the plane belive me when i went in a lanc i had to duck down
- Thread starter
- #113
- Thread starter
- #114
- Thread starter
- #115
- Thread starter
- #116
GermansRGeniuses
Tech Sergeant
nope! the yanks and their B-29 woulda done it!
Reichsmarschall Batista
- Thread starter
- #118
bronzewhaler82
Senior Airman
- 661
- Feb 19, 2004
Viper said:
My god - your ignorance knows no bounds does it? tell me Viper - do you EVER have a clue what you're going on about? the Lancaster was ranked by experts the world over - not to mention the crews who used them, who lets face it know more than any of us do (and certainly you) as one of the best bombers of the entire war - so for you to stand there and say it wasn't that good is truly the words of someone who really doesn't have a clue - sad but true
](/forum/images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall ](*,)")
bronzewhaler82
Senior Airman
- 661
- Feb 19, 2004
Viper said:
stop going on about the B-17 as if it was indestrucable - they got shot down in their thousands - plus have you ever actually been inside a B-17 - i have and if you think a lanc is cramped you should see a B-17 - you practically have to crawl to get inside anywhere - i bet half the time they got shot down cos the pilot got concussion from banging his bloody head!
Plus are you forgetting one of the best bombers of the war was the DH Mosquito - which by the way was made of wood and had NO ARMOUR or defensive turrets - so once again - you've been proved horribly wrong 8)
