cheddar cheese
Major General
If you're carrying a Grand Slam who cares about pinpoint accuracy 
WW2 Plane of the year
- Thread starter schwarzpanzer
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Glider
Captain
Just an observation. Given that the Lancasters and Halifax's had I believe similar loss ratios to the B17 in daylight raids at the end of the war.
I would take the Lancaster with the bigger bombload, longer range, and sights that were just as good as the Norden any time.
The RAF didn't have to fly at night, they chose to.
I would take the Lancaster with the bigger bombload, longer range, and sights that were just as good as the Norden any time.
The RAF didn't have to fly at night, they chose to.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
out of curiosity is ther any info you guys have as to the accuracy of bombing at night as opposed to daylight that would be the number that would affect my opinion as for bombing at night was it not a decision made after heavier than normal losses at the begining . as for day vs night losses that does not speak well for night bombing considering the higher degree of difficulty in intercepting a target at night using very archaic radar searclights and sound compounded by the effective use of jamming
cheddar cheese
Major General
Lanc'll be the guy with the data on that one.
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
Glider said:
A couple of minor points:
1. A 2,000mi missiom the lanc needed a bombay fuel tank, the B-17 did not.
2. A 2,000mi mission the Lanc carried a 7,000lb bomb load, the B-17G carried 6,000lb bomb load, However if you remove the chin terret, the waist gunners and their support equipment for night work it could carry 2,000lb more, or 8,000lbs.
3. The ultimate range of the B-17 ig greater than the Lanc.
The B-17 flew 10K higher than the Lanc and at that altitude was more
accurate and safer from AAA fire.
4 the Lanc fiew 166,000 sorties for ~4,000 losses for a 2.4% loss rate. The B-17 flew 450,000 sorties for a 4,754 loss for a rate of 1.05.
wmaxt
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
right then, the comparision between the lanc and B-17, i've already had to prove countless people worng about this, so i'll jsut copy a post i made a while back
I don't have very extensive sources on the B-17, but the source I do have (the data I believe alder posted), states that the B-17 dropped 640,036 tons of bombs, however it does not give a time frame, this could include pre-war, and it does not give location, some of this tonnage could have been dropped over the pacific. This tonnage was dropped over 291,508 sorties (same source), so by my reckoning this is an average of 2.92 tons carried per sortie, and as far as I know the USAAF didn't use many, if any, incendiaries and no mines............
In comparison the Lancaster dropped 604,612 tons of bombs, all over Europe, all during wartime. Now whilst yes, this figure is lower than that of the B-17, the Lancaster also carried an amazing 51,513,105 incendiaries!! and when you consider the RAF's smallest incendiary weighed 4lbs, we're looking at least another 95,559 tons, in incendiaries, however as there were bigger incendiaries this figure will actually be higher. the current total for the lanc now stands at 700,171 tons, already higher than the tally for the B-17 (and all other bombers in Europe). Then (yes there's more) the Lancaster also laid over 12,000 sea mines, and we can assume the bulk of these were 1,850 lb parachute mines, so this is another 9,910 tons, bringing the total up to 710,081 tons! Whilst this is not all bombs, it is all offensive weapons loads, so the Lancaster did carry a greater tonnage than the B-17, it simply wasn't all bombs.
And if we take the Lancaster's final tonnage figure, and bear in mind the lanc made 156,308 operational sorties, the lanc carried, on average, 4.5 tons per sortie, however due to my calculations using the minimum figures, the actual number would be higher........
So to conclude, not only did the Lancaster carry more tonnage per sortie than any other plane in Europe, the lanc carried, when all offensive stores are taken into account, more tonnage than any other plane over Europe...........
And as a side note, the lanc also carried a further 6,684 tons of food to starving dutch people during operation manna of May 1945..........
And again, post war, the Lancaster carried a further 74,000 now ex-prisoners of war back to Britain...........
so the lanc carried a greater ammount of offensive stores than the B-17, and carried it in a fewer number of sorties, so on average the lanc carried more than the B-17 per sortie, quite important...........
next point, the Mk.XIV Computing bomb sight was just as accurate as the Norden, it's also worthy of note that it was 617Sqn, a squadron of lancs, that became the most accurate heavy bomber squadron of the war........
tell that to Wing Commander Cheshire, he didn't have any problems in his lanc over berlin at 100ft marking with flares, and the smoke he dropped allowed the crews to calculate wind drift, then ofcourse there was the pathfinding mossies and P-51s, campare this to B-17s in the day, often all the B-17s would drop their bombs when their bombing leader did, what does this mean? the first lot of bombs would be accurate, the bombs from the houndreds of planes behind wouldn't
what exactily is your source for this exactly? because it's not true........
again a source for this would be nice.......
you know what i'm gonna ask for with this one
those figures are about as accurate as CC's marksmanship, and what about the tonnage per plane lost? the lanc dropped 132 tons for eact plane lost, more than double the 51 tons per halibag lost, what about the B-17??
I don't have very extensive sources on the B-17, but the source I do have (the data I believe alder posted), states that the B-17 dropped 640,036 tons of bombs, however it does not give a time frame, this could include pre-war, and it does not give location, some of this tonnage could have been dropped over the pacific. This tonnage was dropped over 291,508 sorties (same source), so by my reckoning this is an average of 2.92 tons carried per sortie, and as far as I know the USAAF didn't use many, if any, incendiaries and no mines............
In comparison the Lancaster dropped 604,612 tons of bombs, all over Europe, all during wartime. Now whilst yes, this figure is lower than that of the B-17, the Lancaster also carried an amazing 51,513,105 incendiaries!! and when you consider the RAF's smallest incendiary weighed 4lbs, we're looking at least another 95,559 tons, in incendiaries, however as there were bigger incendiaries this figure will actually be higher. the current total for the lanc now stands at 700,171 tons, already higher than the tally for the B-17 (and all other bombers in Europe). Then (yes there's more) the Lancaster also laid over 12,000 sea mines, and we can assume the bulk of these were 1,850 lb parachute mines, so this is another 9,910 tons, bringing the total up to 710,081 tons! Whilst this is not all bombs, it is all offensive weapons loads, so the Lancaster did carry a greater tonnage than the B-17, it simply wasn't all bombs.
And if we take the Lancaster's final tonnage figure, and bear in mind the lanc made 156,308 operational sorties, the lanc carried, on average, 4.5 tons per sortie, however due to my calculations using the minimum figures, the actual number would be higher........
So to conclude, not only did the Lancaster carry more tonnage per sortie than any other plane in Europe, the lanc carried, when all offensive stores are taken into account, more tonnage than any other plane over Europe...........
And as a side note, the lanc also carried a further 6,684 tons of food to starving dutch people during operation manna of May 1945..........
And again, post war, the Lancaster carried a further 74,000 now ex-prisoners of war back to Britain...........
so the lanc carried a greater ammount of offensive stores than the B-17, and carried it in a fewer number of sorties, so on average the lanc carried more than the B-17 per sortie, quite important...........
next point, the Mk.XIV Computing bomb sight was just as accurate as the Norden, it's also worthy of note that it was 617Sqn, a squadron of lancs, that became the most accurate heavy bomber squadron of the war........
pbfoot said:
tell that to Wing Commander Cheshire, he didn't have any problems in his lanc over berlin at 100ft marking with flares, and the smoke he dropped allowed the crews to calculate wind drift, then ofcourse there was the pathfinding mossies and P-51s, campare this to B-17s in the day, often all the B-17s would drop their bombs when their bombing leader did, what does this mean? the first lot of bombs would be accurate, the bombs from the houndreds of planes behind wouldn't
wmaxt said:
what exactily is your source for this exactly? because it's not true........
wmaxt said:
again a source for this would be nice.......
you know what i'm gonna ask for with this one
those figures are about as accurate as CC's marksmanship, and what about the tonnage per plane lost? the lanc dropped 132 tons for eact plane lost, more than double the 51 tons per halibag lost, what about the B-17??
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
i have nothing but respect for the pathfinders but they were required because the bombing was inaccurate and wasteful of men and excellent equipment to argue that night bombing was as accurate as day bombing in my opinion is folly the foe was excellent at camoflaging and deciept and unless someone has access to numbers stating that what was called precision bombing by the americans where a selected target such as petro chemical or other high value target was was more cost effective than the area bombing by raf . yes there are wonderful examples of night precision peenrmunde being an example but to say it was accurate at night as at day is a no brainer
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
what does it really matter when the RAF wanted to hit cities not just factories and precistion targets, also you ceem to have ignored the entire Lanc vs. B-17 argument, maybe you've realised it's on you cannot win?
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
okay then reverse the roles lancs during the day and b17s at night would you still take the lanc i wouldn't unless there was some protection for the underside which would reduce the vaunted bombload mind you the lower operating altitudes would enhance the accuracy of both flak and bombs
Give the Lancaster the full fighter coverage as the B-17s had from Berlin to back and you'll still have a forumla in the Lancaster's favour. The B-17 would be a pointless venture at night. It wouldn't be carrying enough to make it worthwhile at night since the B-17s would be getting dropped, those gun positions do not help. It'd have been better being unarmed and escorted. The B-17 would probably need to get rid of a few of those guns anyway to make room for the electronical equipment required for night bombing.
I believe all those in favour of the B-17 are forgetting the B-17 first saw service with the RAF in daylight raids. And even with it's higher ceiling it got slaughtered.
I believe all those in favour of the B-17 are forgetting the B-17 first saw service with the RAF in daylight raids. And even with it's higher ceiling it got slaughtered.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
from memory I don't think 90 sqn flew the proscribed tight box with the b17 and it was an early mark god its not to hard to get you brits riled I'm just playing devils advocate knowing full well that my family members that flew with 6gp would shun me
by the way am dreading winter cuz then i can't run outside every time the lanc flies over which is usually every couple of weeks
by the way am dreading winter cuz then i can't run outside every time the lanc flies over which is usually every couple of weeks
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
yeah they did but perservered and conquered as for bomb load its not the size its how you use it
They only conquered when they received fighter escorts and then only really when the P-51 could escort them all the way and all the way back. Even then bombers were being lost every mission in varying numbers.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
thats why i put the b17 in 1944
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
Lanc,
What are your sources for the tonnages? I'm not challenging them Id like to see them. The ETO tonnage sounds about right.
Your point is a good one but once again doesn't account for the additional armor and guns added for daylite operations. Your arguments do not account for the extra 2,500lbs and extra leg it is carried, this adds a bias of the equivelent of 5,000lbs of bombs on each load the B-17 carried.
The Lanc was a great bomber the best part of the lanc was its bombay which was much larger. The British were more interested in special missions and loads. The planes were almost exactly the same size and weight.
The range/eztra tank info for thr lanc is
http://www.lancaster-archive.com/Lanc_RangeToTarget.htm and shows the exact range figure at 2,680mi I did it from memory and missed the 680 but that doesnt change things that much (a 1,000lbs fuel merly maches bomb loads).
The normal range number/lbs bombload came from http://www.warbirdalley.com/b17.htm
Max range B-17, 3400mi and range at max load (17,500lbs) 1,010mi ( http://www.aviation-history.com/boeing/b17.html ) which compares to the L anc of 1,043mi and 10,000lbs Lanc archive ).
The load increase if setting up the B-17 for night operations is simple math 2 men and -60dog clothing = 600lbs, 2 m2s 120lbs, turret and all equipt, Ammo...
I'm not putting the Lanc down but we have accepted a small advantage of the Lancaster is much larger by taking the best setup of a Lanc and less than even setup of the B-17 in comparison. The reality is there very close but having a different mission setup.
wmaxt
What are your sources for the tonnages? I'm not challenging them Id like to see them. The ETO tonnage sounds about right.
Your point is a good one but once again doesn't account for the additional armor and guns added for daylite operations. Your arguments do not account for the extra 2,500lbs and extra leg it is carried, this adds a bias of the equivelent of 5,000lbs of bombs on each load the B-17 carried.
The Lanc was a great bomber the best part of the lanc was its bombay which was much larger. The British were more interested in special missions and loads. The planes were almost exactly the same size and weight.
The range/eztra tank info for thr lanc is
http://www.lancaster-archive.com/Lanc_RangeToTarget.htm and shows the exact range figure at 2,680mi I did it from memory and missed the 680 but that doesnt change things that much (a 1,000lbs fuel merly maches bomb loads).
The normal range number/lbs bombload came from http://www.warbirdalley.com/b17.htm
Max range B-17, 3400mi and range at max load (17,500lbs) 1,010mi ( http://www.aviation-history.com/boeing/b17.html ) which compares to the L anc of 1,043mi and 10,000lbs Lanc archive ).
The load increase if setting up the B-17 for night operations is simple math 2 men and -60dog clothing = 600lbs, 2 m2s 120lbs, turret and all equipt, Ammo...
I'm not putting the Lanc down but we have accepted a small advantage of the Lancaster is much larger by taking the best setup of a Lanc and less than even setup of the B-17 in comparison. The reality is there very close but having a different mission setup.
wmaxt
You've put the B-17 above the Lancaster because the B-17 received fighter escort. So, you're saying the B-17 was better due to something that had nothing to do with the aircraft itself? What about if the Lancaster had day fighter escort? Would you then rank it above the B-17?
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
no because it was far less capable of defending itself
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
plan_D said:
Just like the Lanc bombed during the day without escorts. Lets not go there guys.
My point again is that the abilities of the B-17/Lanc are shaped more by mission peramerters than anything else they are the same size and weight. The lank has 500 horsepower more and should therefore carry more, higher, and faster its also a night bomber with less armor and wepons for a further advantage. The differences are not that great and in fact are almost identicle if the aircraft are set up the same way. The Lancs biggest advantage is its huge adaptable bombay and the British intrest in using it to it's max.
By the way, If I wanted the most flexible night bomber in the war prior to the B-29 it would be the Lancaster. It's a great plane its just not black/white better than the B-17.
Thats no disgrace for either.
wmaxt
