Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3 (1 Viewer)

are you not going to answer to any of our points at all then or just blantantly ignore them again, forcing me to post them all again??

yes, 10+ .50cals did help the defence of the B-17, however it did not stop them getting shot down in very large numbers and it reduced their payload- allot. Is having so many payload reducing alomost pointless defensive guns really justified??

yes, the B-17 did fly higher than the lanc, this also required a huge form up time over england to get to hight, and still didn't stop them getting intercepted at all, also, how many problems did the B-17 have with flying at altitude?? how many crew men suffered and could not do their job at that hight?? how many times did guns stop working at that hight?? i'm not saying that altitude's a bad thing, i'm just trying to get you to see that it's not everything...........

yes, the B-17 did have a co-pilot, it had allot of other crew too, so whenever a lanc was shot down, we lost 7 men, when a B-17 was shot down, you often lost 10+ no co-pilot can save a plane that's been blown to bits, and lanc pilots often taught their flight engineers how to fly the plane, there are even stories of flight engineers flying their damaged planes all the way back to England............

and yes radials are more damage resistant than inlines, in the B-17's case, they're also less powerfull.........

yes, daylight bombing is inherintley more accurate than night bombing, that DOES NOT mean however that the B-17 was always accurate, and also may i remind you of two points- firstly that when city bombing accuracy is not always nessisairy, and secondly, 617 Sqn, a squadron of lancasters, became the most accurate heavy bomber squadron of the war..........

and i agree with you saying the B-29 was the best bomber of the war, everyone will agree with that, however that is where the similarities in our lists stop.

so, as i see it you have managed to make 5 somewhat weak points in support of the B-17, i've decided that i'll post some of the arguments in favour of the lancaster, because you obviously loved them so much you ignored them

- the lancaster bombed sucessfully by day and night (which you seem to think is the mark of a great bomber)

-the lancaster was faster than the B-17

-the lancaster could carry a significantly higher payload than the B-17

-the lancaster could carry this higher payload considderably further than the B-17

-the lancaster was more manouverable than the B-17

-the lancaster was more versatile than the B-17, as proved by the various roles and bombing missions she performed

-the lancaster remained in service longer than the B-17

-the lancaster was used in more air arms around the world than the B-17

-the lancaster was converted to a very sucessfull long range transport that was used not only as the main british transport in the Berlin airlift but became the personal transport of the prime minister and the King of a large empire, the B-17 however, was not.......

-an evolution of the lancaster wasd used sucessfully as a civilian transport

-the lancaster gave birth to bombers and maritime patrol aircraft that served into the 80's, the B-17 didn't........

-the lancaster bought into service some of the most advanced electronic warfare equiptment around at the time, the B-17 however, did not.......

i wish to point out i'm only comparing the lanc to the B-17 at this moment in time..............

and syscom3, i've only posted some of the arguments there, there's more if you want them, i also wish to say to you that when arguing, it is considdered good practice to reply to ar atleast acknowledge someone else's argument before commencing your own, you do not simply make your own argument like that, it's not an argument if you do..............

A number of Fortresses were converted to transports in the postwar period and designated "CB-17". Some of these were fitted luxuriously and used as VIP transports, under the designation "VB-17".

B-17s were also popular in purely civilian roles after the war. TWA operated one as an executive transport in the immediate postwar years.

do you have any more information on these planes?

The CB-17 was also called the C-108. Info about that one can be found here:

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b17_15.html

I don't know how many were converted.

According to aerofiles, there was 1 CB-17, 1 VB-17 and 4 C-108s. So it does not appear that the numbers were significant.

thanks for the extra info, i didn't know about them but you're right the numbers aren't exactly mind blowing.........

That websites states it as "several" CB-17s. It does mention a lot about the XC-108 being unsuccessful. Which points to me as the B-17 being a less successful bomber than the B-24 from an aircraft point of view. The C-87 and C-109 while unliked by their crews were able to make the trip over the "Hump". The XC-108A couldn't do it due to constant engine problems.

Yes the numbers don't seem to have any consistency, but they were not big by any stretch. Like I said, there was a fairly large contingent of cargo aircraft already in the US arsenal, so there was less of a need to convert bombers.

but those that were converted only serve to prove they wouldn't have been sucessfull even if they had been converted in larger numbers......

The B-17 was also used into the 80s as a fire bomber.

For an airplane a generation earlier than the Lanc it was a very sucessful aircraft. It was more sucessful as a daylite bomber than the Lanc though it did require escort and had a limited payload partly due to all the armament required for daylite raids.
With training and minimum weponry it's bomb loads would have been into the 12K range to Berlin in night time missions, isn't that about what the Lanc carried on similar missions?
Another thing a lot of those special missions could have been carried out with the B-17 had it been desired.
Many of your points are only applicable in a biased view point based on the usage that was used while not considering what the actual capabilities could have produced, if so DESIRED. Some, like the Tall Boy and Grand Slam were beyond the B-17s capabilities but on it's own are they enough to clearly make the Lanc or the B-17 better, I don't know.

Comparing the B-17 and the Lanc 1:1 without adjusting for mission requirements is ridiculas, like comparing Apples to Onions.

Was it better than the Lanc, except for the daylite role, it doesn't stand out but it did what it had to do and did it well - so did the Lanc.

wmaxt

that is true, and a very diplomatic answer

and also the fact that it was a generation earlier (i wouldn't call it a generation earlier, just earlier), meant that it had years of development, the lanc was an immediate sucess in in it's first varient and needed no real modification after entering service, the B-17 had years of development and still wasn't at it's best by the time the lanc was in service..........

The B-17 was only more successful during the day soley due to the escort fighters it received. When the RAF used the B-17 early on, it was a complete failure due to lack of escort cover.

As far as I know there's only three marks of Lancaster (not including the specials) Mk.I, II and III. III was a I with Packard-Merlins and II was because the MOD believed they might run out of Merlins.

:edit: Sorry, naturally I forgot the Canadian built Mk.X. Feel free to point out the other marks that I've most likely missed.

well there were other marks, many other marks in fact however most of these are exactily the same as the Mk.III or are slightly adapted versions of the Mk.III, there was however the service seeing Mk.VII, if i bring that into the equation we're looking at a lanc capable of 348mph..........

Well, that is why I stated not including the specials. These were all the ones changed to carry the Grand Slam, or test equipment, or RADAR or...anything and everything basically.

the lancaster kicks ass said:

that is true, and a very diplomatic answer

and also the fact that it was a generation earlier (i wouldn't call it a generation earlier, just earlier), meant that it had years of development, the lanc was an immediate sucess in in it's first varient and needed no real modification after entering service, the B-17 had years of development and still wasn't at it's best by the time the lanc was in service..........

Click to expand...

But airframe limitations are set during the first design.
And again if the Lanc had been used in daylight it would have had armor and crew added, payload limited and required an escort, not to mention be a dead ringer for the B-17s capabilities as operated.
All I ask is that the airframe capabilities be compared in an equivelent manner. The two planes over all capabilities are awful close.
They were equiped to do different jobs (that complimented each other) and comparing them so equiped is a very biased view, in my opinion.

The Lanc also had the advantage of wartime experiance in its original design. If hadn't been better in at least some areas somebody should have been shot!

wmaxt

well the way i see it let's just look at stats and achievements and not focus on their role so much perhaps??

No, extra crewmen and extra armour would not be needed. The Lancaster couldn't operate during the day because when it first came into service there were no capable escort fighters to take it to target and back. When the Mustang did arrive the RAF and USAAF had agreed; RAF by night, USAAF by day.

oh yeah, i can list all the lanc marks if you wish??

Sure!

ok tomorrow morning i gotta go now.........