The Liberator was "weak in the wings" comapred to the B-17. Compared to the Lancaster, it was probably about equal. The Lancaster was no B-17 either when it came to surviving damage.
Nice shot, GT! I have been through that airplane several times. That one is based in Mesa Arizona at the CAF chapter there. It is on Falcon Field. For you Brits, Falcon Field was used to train RAF pilots during the war.
Well, that's good for a night bomber. In daylight ops, durability is important too.
It's a series of tradeoffs - no doubt about that! But you really cannot say that a bigger bombload on a more fragile airframe is "better", or the other way around either. They're just different.
You say this only because you would be bombing at night. If you were bombing during the day I would take a B-17 anyday. You forget Lanc during the day you had to contend with more FLAK and more fighters. What you would you rather be sitting on then explosive bombs or armor to keep shrapenel from flying up your ass?
Um, the Lancaster made 40,000 daylight sorties - big difference.
Most of these were at the very end of the war when there was little Luftwaffe' opposition, or into Northern France or Italy where at least temporary air supremancy could be obtained earlier in the war.
GT, the B-24 was created for range and that wing, thin Mr. Davis had a great vision for the design. the wing worked and the aircraft was used for everything the air core and Navey could come up with.
I am a little sad for this heavy Lancaster bashing even though I am not a great fan