mosquitoman
Master Sergeant
Pathfinder mosquito's did very well as bombers, the LNSF very rarely lost aircraft either
Mosquito better than B-17?????
- Thread starter Chiron
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #22
"but with a full bomb-load, they would be heavy and slower to manuever as well. "
But cheddar cheese already stated that "B-17 normally carried 8000lbs to Germany, right? The Mossie could do the same with 6,000lbs, but much faster"
So, even in large bombing operation, I think a pack of Mossie can handle the job beautifually.
But cheddar cheese already stated that "B-17 normally carried 8000lbs to Germany, right? The Mossie could do the same with 6,000lbs, but much faster"
So, even in large bombing operation, I think a pack of Mossie can handle the job beautifually.
cheddar cheese
Major General
Yeah, comparing the 2 aircraft is a little silly. But It does show that the Mossie was a good bomber.
However, if there was a large formation of Mossies attacking a target, and Some 190's were scrambled to intercept them, the Bombers would turn into fighters and have to take out the 190's, correct? Thus meaning that the bombload would not be able to be dropped. In the same situation with the B-17, the escort fighters would take out the 190's and the bombers would bomb. It was far more logical to use the B-17 than the Mossie, which is the question in hand. Also, it was the combined day and night bombing the harmed Germany so much, and if the Mossie was used it would more than likely be at night, meaning there would be no daylight bombing.
However, if there was a large formation of Mossies attacking a target, and Some 190's were scrambled to intercept them, the Bombers would turn into fighters and have to take out the 190's, correct? Thus meaning that the bombload would not be able to be dropped. In the same situation with the B-17, the escort fighters would take out the 190's and the bombers would bomb. It was far more logical to use the B-17 than the Mossie, which is the question in hand. Also, it was the combined day and night bombing the harmed Germany so much, and if the Mossie was used it would more than likely be at night, meaning there would be no daylight bombing.
- Thread starter
- #25
cheddar cheese
Major General
Oooo thats been done 
Lancaster wins every time.
B-17 v Halifax might be interesting...
Lancaster wins every time.B-17 v Halifax might be interesting...
evangilder
"Shooter"
Are you looking for an honest comparison, or are you just trying to find a way to bash the B-17?
cheddar cheese
Major General
Im not looking for a way to bash the B-17...I love the plane, but I dont think it was as good as the Lancaster. It was probably better than the Halifax though, and I dont know what else to compare it too.
- Thread starter
- #29
ya, can someone tell me why Lancaster is so great? even the Discovery Channel ranked it as the best bomber in WWII
http://www.exn.ca/flight/flightpath/plane.asp?ID=26
In terms of defense, B-17 was the best, so what made Lancaster special?
http://www.exn.ca/flight/flightpath/plane.asp?ID=26
In terms of defense, B-17 was the best, so what made Lancaster special?
evangilder
"Shooter"
That question was for Chiron, CC.
cheddar cheese
Major General
Ah sorry.
Well the Lancaster flew night missions as opposed to the B-17 during the day. Also, the Lancaster had a MUCH higher payload and was MUCH more manoeverable. The Lancaster's also tended to fly in smaller groups than the B-17's. Granted, it was not as tough but it did not need to be.
Well the Lancaster flew night missions as opposed to the B-17 during the day. Also, the Lancaster had a MUCH higher payload and was MUCH more manoeverable. The Lancaster's also tended to fly in smaller groups than the B-17's. Granted, it was not as tough but it did not need to be.
evangilder
"Shooter"
I think the Lancaster vs. B-17 debate has been over-debated. They both had their advantages and disadvantages and I honestly like them both. I would have loved to have seen the Sally B and the Lanc fly together when I was over there. They often both flew at the air shows I attended, but not together. I think that woud have been cool.
- Thread starter
- #33
"are you just trying to find a way to bash the B-17?"
No, actually I like B-17 as much as I love all the bombers. I just want to know every bomber's advantage and its disadvange being a role in strategic bombing in WW2. And I want to know why some bomers were much capable of conducting some missions, while other did not.
No, actually I like B-17 as much as I love all the bombers. I just want to know every bomber's advantage and its disadvange being a role in strategic bombing in WW2. And I want to know why some bomers were much capable of conducting some missions, while other did not.
evangilder
"Shooter"
Okay, the way you worded a few things made me wonder. No offense was meant. The B-17 design and thinking at the time was that a well armed bomber would not be as vulnerable to enemy fire as they couls shoot back. Obviously that wasn't quite the case. Shooting back is one thing, being able to outmanuever and get away from the attacker is quite obviously another.
The B-17 could take substantial damage and make it back home. Granted, the planes could be damaged bad enough to be a write-off, but the crew could get another plane and fight on. The Lancaster was the heavyweight in Europe and was one heck of an aircraft as well. They both performed a hell of a job under the worst of conditions.
The B-17 could take substantial damage and make it back home. Granted, the planes could be damaged bad enough to be a write-off, but the crew could get another plane and fight on. The Lancaster was the heavyweight in Europe and was one heck of an aircraft as well. They both performed a hell of a job under the worst of conditions.
cheddar cheese
Major General
Agreed on all counts.
evangilder
"Shooter"
The problem with debating like aircraft is that you will have devout fans of each type that will heartily argue that the plane they love is better than the other. The reality is that during the time, both types performed their roles as they were able to. This goes for the Fortress vs Lanc, Lightning vs Mosquito, etc. In both of those cases, I like them both and wouldn't think one "better" than the other.
By the way, speaking of that, I am 2 weeks away from getting my Mahogany P-38! I have a Mahogany Mossie already, so now I can put them side by side.
By the way, speaking of that, I am 2 weeks away from getting my Mahogany P-38! I have a Mahogany Mossie already, so now I can put them side by side.
cheddar cheese
Major General
Nice! 8) Make sure the P-38 is on show more, and that its on a higher shelf
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
cheddar cheese said:
I Agree as well. What isn't always mentioned is that the B-17 was designed in 1935/36 to fight it's way in and back out that itr was able to do as well 9 years later against a foe a generation ahead (or was it two by that time?) is increadible.
The Lanc a generation ahead of the B-17 was designed for night bombing and did an exceptional job at it.
Hand in hand they were great and did the job they were there to do!
evangilder
"Shooter"
Heh, I am going to have a challenge just fitting it in with the others! I have a Mahogany Stuka and Corsair in there as well as some smaller metal WWII birds! I think I'm gonna need a bigger displlay case.
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
cheddar cheese said:Nice! 8) Make sure the P-38 is on show more, and that its on a higher shelf
I did just get a Phantom Mustang model. It's got a clear shell that shows all the inner workings and motors that spin the prop and operate the landing gear. It is a limited edition that is no longer produced but is sometimes available on ebay.
The P-38 is my favorite but this is still cool.
