Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
While it would have proven to be a great bomber, I would not classify it as one of the best bombers of WW2 only because of its limited use. Had it been used more, I am sure it would second only to the B-29.
 
I have to agree with you regarding the B32. It didnt see enough action to be included.

Im still not decided on what #2 is. For each advantage the B17, B24 and Lanc has, its offset by a fault.

One thing I was thinking of, is if there was a version of the Lanc built with tandam cockpit seating and equiped with .50 cal turrets, that would have made it a true "ass kicker" in the PTO. The range and payload would allow it to fly all over the PTO and do some serious damage!
 
I was thinking more of the Lanc in the PTO in 1943 and 1944.

It had a better payload compared to the B24 for VERY long ranges. A Lanc flying from Darwin could put most of the important oil fields in Borneo under attack, with catastrophic results for Japan.
 
adler, your figures on the last page, for what model of the B-17 were they? 'cos i've only heard of early B-17s hitting 300mph, and the B-17 cruised at 182mph, the lanc at 210 fully loaded, similarly the 282mph top speed of the lanc is it's fully loaded speed, once it'd dropped it's load and was on half fuel it could easily be tipped over 300mph.........
 
Only the B-17G cruised at 182mph Lanc. The Fs which were used more than the G's cruised at over 200. Also the same goes for the B-17 except for the G model. It could fly over 300 once it was not fully loaded. It was faster than a Lanc. Dont take me wrong even though I like the 17 better than the Lanc, I agree with you the Lanc was better.

Max Speeds

B-17 C D: 323mph
B-17E F: 317 mph
B-17G: 287mph

Cruising Speed

B-17 C D: 250 mph
B-17E F: 210 mph
B-17G: 182 mph

As for you argument about the Lanc carrying more bomb load though. You are correct it could but at less of a distance. The B-17 could carry up to 12800lb which is only about 1200lb less than a normally loaded Lancaster (not including the ones that were modified to carry the damn 22000lber). If it carried the 12800lb then its range would have been similar to the Lancaster. However with the 7000lb bomb load the B-17 achieved a higher range and that was needed to reach deep into Germany.
 
I would take out the B-24 because it was a handful in formation. I like the Lanc. but I think it would need to operate at day to see how it would stack up with the B-17 and B-24. I like the later model B-17's for the reason that it was a good bombing platform. It could have carried a better bombload farther though.
 
the lancaster kicks ass said:
you kidding me, germany aint that far away, take a look see.........
Click to expand...

I know where Germany is in relation to England Lanc. I live in Germany. However the bombers required the range to fly to there targets deep into German territory. You have to remember that Germany was not just Germany in 1942. That is where the B-17 came in. It had the range to hit almost anywhere in "Germany".
 
why? no it wasn't the heaviest but bombing by day we'd get the P-51 escorts (surely if were're just swapping the planes we should just swap the planes not what comes with them) the the B-17's main escort was their escorts, not their defensive firepower, even the B-17's guns were useless if she was unescorted..........

and the yanks would have to give their tactics some serious revision, you can't fly in tight formations by night, and american radar technology was behind britain's, which would include the ground radar you want to fit to these B-17s, don't get me wrong i'm not saying they couldn't bomb at not, it's just they wouldn't be as good as the brits...................
 
Negative the formations that the B-17s flew were part of there defence. A Lanc formation with escorts would have been eaten alive even more than the B-17s were. B-17s were still hit hard even with P-51Ds.
 
but you cannot deny that the escorts were their best chance of safety?? and a lanc can still corkscrew and drop by day, admitidly they wont be as effective but it'll still put the rookie pilots off.........
 
Lancasters would have been taken out of the sky in un-escorted daylight raids with even worse casualties than the B-17s were, no question. The lanc was rugged yes, but the lack of defensive armament, and slower speed would have made them even more succeptible than were B-17s. With a P-51 escort, Lancasters would still suffer rather heavily compared to the B-17s. B-17s were faster, and just better armed, and can come home with the worst of damage.
 
when you're struggling to reach 300 what's a few miles an hour speed difference when you're getting attacked by 400mph fighters?? however i do agree about the damage tollerance.........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

  • Locked
Attempted assassination of Trump.
Replies
2
Views
1K
DerAdlerIstGelandet
CANADA BANS 1500 TYPES OF ASSAULT WEAPONS IMMEDIATELY
2 3
Replies
47
Views
5K
Dana Bell
D
Server Maintenance :: February 28th, 6:30AM EST (UTC -5)
Replies
6
Views
3K
Gnomey
Server Update :: 10-30-17 - Post any issues
Replies
16
Views
3K
ARTESH
B
move on +3
Replies
1
Views
2K
blobs
B
Menu
Log in
Register