Best Fighter

• May 4, 2004

• #281

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

It sort of was, I've read interviews with Lancaster pilots saying as soon as the bombs were dropped they would bank hard, and pull round on their wing tip and the Lancaster could handle it without stalling or just ripping apart.

The B-17 couldn't do that. You cannot throw a B-17 around like you can a Lancaster.

 

• May 4, 2004

• #282

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

The formations were due to the American tactics. In order to achieve the best bomb pattern they needed to stay in close. Any bomber (even the Lancaster despite its maneuverability) was very vulnerable to fighters when it was operating in daylight without the mutual support of enemy bombers. I also think (I'm not positive of this) that the Americans used the massed formations in an actual attempt to shoot down German fighters rather than merely drive them off. I know the kill claims were often inflated but I believe both the B-17 and B-24 were creditted with upwards of a 1,000 kills. Some fighters didn't do that.

 

• May 4, 2004

• #283

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

A larger clumped up formation makes a much easier target. The B-17 couldn't handle as good as the Lancaster in turns, and dives.

 

• May 4, 2004

• #284

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

the lancaster is a much smaller plane though 8)

 

• May 4, 2004

• #285

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

And yet it could carry more.

 

• May 4, 2004

• #286

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

thats because the lancaster had a massive bomb bay, a b-17 could probably have carried the same if it had a bigger bomb bay 8)

 

• May 4, 2004

• #287

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

That's all well and good, but it didn't. Plus the fact if it did it would have had less ammo and probably had to get rid of some of its guns.

 

• May 4, 2004

• #288

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

and theres the problem:- finding the right balance between offense and defence, the lancaster had too little defense and the b-17 had too much defense 8)

 

• May 4, 2004

• #289

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

Exactly, the YB-40 had even more defensive though..

 

• May 4, 2004

• #290

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

YB-40.... forgive me for saying this but dont think ive heard of that

 

• May 4, 2004

• #291

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

It was an experimental B-17 with even more guns on it. I'm trying to find a decent picture to show the changes but I'm having no luck at the moment.

Some examples I can remember are almost tripled ammo, twin .50 cals in each waist gun position instead of one. Two top turret guns instead of one, each with quad .50cals. There were some more but I can't remember.

 

• May 4, 2004

• #292

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

cool 8)

 

• May 4, 2004

• #293

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

It was cool, they combat tested it and it was way too slow to keep up with the normal B-17 formation. They were designed to be extra protection for the formation and they couldn't even keep up...

 

• May 4, 2004

• #294

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

 

• May 4, 2004

• #295

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

They carried a full bomb load though, no wonder they were so slow. Why they didn't just not carry bombs, or just carry half I will never know.

 

• May 4, 2004

• #296

kiwimac

Staff Sergeant

1,097

13

Feb 22, 2004

Deepest Darkest NZ

www.westcotthort.com

You're not wrong!



Kiwimac

 

• May 4, 2004

• #297

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

What do you mean by that, are you saying that you thought I was? Although I was wrong because I thought the two top turrets had quad .50 cals...

 

• May 4, 2004

• #298

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

I heard it was still an easy target though, mind you, al B-17s are, and going back the balance between guns and payload(yes i did look at the last page) the lancaster didn't need anymore armourment (well maybe a ventral turret, but apart from that) becasue of the corkscrew manouver, it saved hundereds, maybe thousands of planes...................

 

• May 4, 2004

• #299

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

The Lanc would have benefitted from a heavier gun than the .303. Some of the late war Lancs had twin fifties in the tail or mid-upper positions and that was a definite improvement for daylight or clear night missions.

The YB-40 and YB-41 (gunship version of a B-24) did not carry a bombload. If I remember correctly, the bomb bay doors were welded shut and the space used to store extra .50 cal ammo. That was the primary reason they were so slow. After the target, ever other Fort in the formation would be 4,000-6,000 lbs lighter while the YB-40 would still be carrying a couple of tons of extra ammo.

 

• May 4, 2004

• #300

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

All the sources I've read said the YB-40 still carried bombs.