pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
what speeds did the heavies cruise at i think between 200 and 240 knots just aguess and tge fighters maybe 280 and 320 from talking to mossie pilots 240 was their cruise speed
Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3
- Thread starter DerAdlerIstGelandet
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
- Thread starter
- #302
the lancaster kicks ass said:
And corkscrewing in a bomber to get away from a Bf-109 or Fw-190 during the day would have 100% ineffective. The escorts provided a great deal of the defense however the formations that the B-17's flew in with there defensive armament was a great deal of there defense. They rellied on each other to cover each other.
evangilder
"Shooter"
I don't think the corkscrew would have been 100% effective. In time, the Germans would have been able to develop a way to counter that and still go after the Lanc. I think Erich mentioned once that they had a way to time it so that the Lanc would corkscrew and come out of it, right into the waiting guns of the fighters.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i never said it would be 100% effective, but you cannot say it would be 100% in-effective adler, rookie pilots wouldn't see it coming and there's nothing any pilot can do if the lanc drops suddenly..........
and you seem to be skirting around the issue of the B-17's flying by night, you'd need new tactics you can't fly huge formations by night..........
and you seem to be skirting around the issue of the B-17's flying by night, you'd need new tactics you can't fly huge formations by night..........
Nonskimmer
Captain
I can just see a formation of Lancasters corkscrewing to avoid enemy fighters by day. They'd manage to do the intercepting fighters' work for them just through the mid-air collisions.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
no one said it was fool proof 
syscom3
Pacific Historian
A B17 or B24 flying alone during the day was an airplane waiting to be shot down. A Lanc flying alone during the day would be no different.
B17's and B24's could fly at night. They just wouldnt be doing it in large close formations.
If there was one benifit the large B17 and B24 formations had, is at least they could inflict some defensive punishment back at the fighters. Not as much as was expected, but some none the less.
B17's and B24's could fly at night. They just wouldnt be doing it in large close formations.
If there was one benifit the large B17 and B24 formations had, is at least they could inflict some defensive punishment back at the fighters. Not as much as was expected, but some none the less.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i never said it wouldn't...........
this's what i mean, people say they will but they don't give alternative tactics atleast i'm trying to suggest something!
- Thread starter
- #309
the lancaster kicks ass said:
Um yeah corkscrewing would not work at all Lanc. Look at this way. Lancaster droppes suddenly as you say, hes doing about 300mph (well be generous, hes also in a dive now
). Fw-190 flys by and then turns into a dive and shoots the crap out of Lancaster flying circles in a dive. Do you see what I mean. I dont care how maneuverable you believe your Lancaster is, she was not more manueverable than any German fighter that would be sent up to intercept her.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
ok firstly dropping is not diving, if you rear gunner shouts drop all engines are throttled back, the planes looses speed and the attacking fighter overshoots, again i agree that this wouldn't always work, but you cannot possibly say that dropping and the corkscrew would never work.........
- Thread starter
- #311
It would never work Lanc. The fighter pilot would just have to turn around. Do you think the Lanc can outrun a Bf-109 or a Fw-190? Second of all yes it would be a dive in the corkscrew because they would not slowly decend, they would drop.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
even if the fighter has to turn around and attack it's still worked!
so come on, let's hear how you think the B-17s would o at night......
so come on, let's hear how you think the B-17s would o at night......
cheddar cheese
Major General
Not really lanc, it would turn around and waste the Lancaster and all the hard (cork)screwing would have been in vain
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
couldn't resist it could you 
- Thread starter
- #315
Lanc its not that hard to understand. Any bomber that does, not just a Lancaster would still get it from the fighter.
I dont think the B-17 would do any different from the Lancaster in night bombing. How would it be any different?
I dont think the B-17 would do any different from the Lancaster in night bombing. How would it be any different?
syscom3
Pacific Historian
B17's were used for nighttime raids in the PTO, sometimes with great effect.
The only difference between the B17 and lanc operating at night, is the Lanc had a better payload.
One advantage the B17 might have had over the Lanc, is the belly turret could be removed and the hole converted to a tunnel gun setup, to make life a bit more dangerous for the night fighters flying underneath.
The only difference between the B17 and lanc operating at night, is the Lanc had a better payload.
One advantage the B17 might have had over the Lanc, is the belly turret could be removed and the hole converted to a tunnel gun setup, to make life a bit more dangerous for the night fighters flying underneath.
- Thread starter
- #317
I agree. I dont think the Lanc was good at bombing at night because it was a Lancaster. The B-17 would have done just as good as the Lanc.
MP-Willow
Staff Sergeant
Ok if we are going to say that the B-29 was the best, and I will agree it was very good, but that they were able to operate because of the B-24s and B-17s. The b-24 would be the second best. Yes it was a beast to get and maintaine in formation and the wings were thin, but they could cover the attlantic, and were very good in the pacific. I have not read a lot about the Lanc in the PTO if anyone has some information that would be great. The B-17 was pulled out of the Pacific, because it was not as good for the long disttance.
I think the B-24 and the Lanc are almost tied in being the second best, but they were both a generation away from the b-29 or B-32 and B-36.
I think the B-24 and the Lanc are almost tied in being the second best, but they were both a generation away from the b-29 or B-32 and B-36.
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
I agree the Lanc was striped allowing it to carry more but:
The Lanc has to at least be considered for second because its bombay has the flexability to carry such diverse loads. Sure the B-17 could have carried the same weight loads (normal loads) to the German targets and even managed some of the special bombs (maybe even better than the Lanc in some cases), other loads just plain would not have fit in anything but the Lanc.
The B-24 was capable, had a very long range, flew everywhere and most impotantly was available in large nimbers. It makes for a good debate.
wmaxt
The Lanc has to at least be considered for second because its bombay has the flexability to carry such diverse loads. Sure the B-17 could have carried the same weight loads (normal loads) to the German targets and even managed some of the special bombs (maybe even better than the Lanc in some cases), other loads just plain would not have fit in anything but the Lanc.
The B-24 was capable, had a very long range, flew everywhere and most impotantly was available in large nimbers. It makes for a good debate.
wmaxt
elmilitaro
Senior Airman
I'd have to say my tie for first would be between the B-17 and the Lancaster.
- Status
