WW2 Plane of the year (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I never stated the Lancaster wouldn't suffer the same fate as the B-17 while on unescorted bombing routes. We shall "go there" because the B-17, even when bristling with .50cals, could not survive in the day during raids. Why give credit to the '17' when it's increase in ability came from another aircraft, not the '17s' own ability?
 

Didn't night fighter Mossies go with the lancs to harass the German night fighters?

wmaxt
 
NF Mosquitos did go up at night to involve themselves to harass the German NF boxes, yes. But I'm not adding that to the ability of the Lancaster, like pbfoot is adding the escort duties of the Mustang to the ability of the B-17.
 
did not the raf also use decoys intruders and the such to enhance the night raids same church different pew as escorts and bomb for bomb which method gave best results
 
pb, The escorts were required but I don't feel they were an extension of the bombers or their tactics IMO.

I think the planes B-17/Lanc were very close in overall capabilities.
The Lanc had a phisicaly larger, more flexible bombay and a comand structure that was willing to do special loadouts and missions giving the Lancaster an edge in specific capabilities.
The B-17 lightened and streamlined for night activities could have given it the capacity to rival the gross tonnage/range of the Lanc but not the flexibility.
The Lanc could not have been a good day bomber as it is its loss rate was twice the B-17 the way it was. More armor would limit bomb load/range substantialy.

Bottom line:
The B-17 was a better daylite bomber that would not be as good as the Lanc on special/night missions.
The Lanc was the best night/special mission bomber but not a good as the B-17 in daylite mode.
lbs incendary, lbs dropped are a smoke screen for planes set up for different missions.

overall the B-17 would rate a ~9.8/9 to the Lancasters 10 IMHO.

wmaxt
 
I agree here with you wmaxt. Both were great aircraft but either one had its advantages and disadvantages.

pbfoot said:
and bomb for bomb which method gave best results
Click to expand...

You can not really compare which one had better results. They were too different objectives. The American Daylight raids would hit strategic targets while the British night time raids would hit the cities. Overall both were very effective because it kept the cities burnind 24 hours a day. Both were highly effective in that way.
 
Oh, the madness... imo both bombers are about equal, what's going on here is nit-picking and at that point the tactics/purpose/ranges/bombloads/etc are too different to compare and contrast. I think that the final decision is a matter of personal preference and bias. At this point you could almost pick looks as the deciding factor.
 
will go back to some earlier replies on this page. No the German nachtjagd did not use boxes as we understand them. they fought as a single unit. Mossies hung around night fighter beacons which was an attractant to the German nf's as well as harassing German nf airfields upon the Luftwaffe return after the operations.

here is a sampling I have posted before
 

Attachments

  • stream_829.jpg
    62.8 KB · Views: 418
I was refering to the Nachtjagd using that grid where one fighter would hang around in it's little square on the grid and get anything that came through it. Unless that's ALL wrong.
 
Ich verstehen plan

well it is actually an area instead of a gid on a map. When a night fighter crew scored a kill they would give a reference square grid which France and the Reich were divided up into. Of course this plotted just where the RAF or even US a/c may have crashed in theory. Not always correct of course especially at night when a RAF heavy had been evacuated and the bomber decided it wanted a little more loitre time in the area before it's fall
 
Did they have to discover the wreckage of the plane to be given credit for the kill then?
 

Good stuff!

That was the concept I had not a box which would be suicidal in WWII, but groupped loosley by bomb group.

wmaxt
 
helmitsmit said:
Wasn't the lanc more manuvourable?
Click to expand...

In my research I ran across a quote from a German pilot flying a captured B-17, that compared its handling as 'feeling like an He-111'. I've never seen anything that would compare the B-17 to the Lanc capability wise. Some one else?

wmaxt
 
Plan :

The nachtjagd crews even the experten had a very hard time at night and attacking from the rear or underneath in id'ing their RAF victims. in fact in some of the crews log-buchs it is described as "shot down one 4-motor".

The grid reference was on a map-board and accessible to the crew primarily the radar operator or radio-man and with a crew of more than two then the other crew were witnesses to the downing, the radio- operator would get a reading from the equipment on the craft and of course the plotting on the map/by grid reference and it was radio'd back to ground control in whatever area the night fighter crew was participating in, and the areas of coverage did overlap this is one reason why grids or boxes did not always come into effect. From that grid reference plot the ground crew would hopefully identify area, call in the local police and govt, agencies to confirm any eye witnesses to the downing and this was actually if ground crews or civilians watched the air battle and the progression of the downed RAF heavy bomber until it crashed. Once the next day arose the authorities would go out to inspect the wreckage and tag everything, looking for any RAF crewmen that needed to be buried and even the location of the rounds of the night fighter if it was applicable or if anything was readily available and not totally demolished. Upon a complete examination the German fighter pilot was at times allowed depending on rank whether he could inspect the wreckage himself. Photos were taken etc. Obviously before and after the operation the German nf crew would make out a missions report just like the day fighter boys and give their fully story, each crewman giving his version to assist the crew in obtaining an Abschusse // claimed and confirmed kill.
 
I see. So it was much more work getting your kill confirmed at night. Obviously no guncam footage to prove you really did shoot the heavy down. On top of that, they couldn't always see if the plane had really gone down. It must have been even harder for the Mosquito boys to get their kills confirmed ...they couldn't go out looking for the wreckage as it would be in enemy terrority!
 

Also, when compared to the Boeing product, the Lancs (My fav non-US bomber BTW) were more fragile. There were stories of Me-109s colliding with them and still making it to bases six hours away, and etc, etc, etc, etc, and etc. Granted to a certain point I am somewhat ignorant of the Lanc's lore or details, but compared to the B-17, I have never hear of Lancs sustaining massive battle damage and still staying the air.

:{)
 
Still to tell you the truth, if there is to be a WWII plane of the year in my book it has to be the C-47. If it wasn't for this plane, many of these other planes we talk about in all of the different lists would not be able to fly or D-Day would have not been possible, and so on and so forth.
 
It's all very well that german pilot saying the B-17 handled like a He-111, from what i've read the He-111 isn't exactly light on it's feet for its size, and there are numerous pilots that say the lanc handles like much smaller planes, but the lanc was so manouverable it counted on it's manouverability as one of it's main defences, how many reports are there of pilots barrel rolling B-17s like they did with lancs, i even remember reading something about a lanc completing a loop-the-loop (not too syre about this, it's possible though), if it's true i'd like to see that done in a B-17. Also whilst 617Sqn were training for the dams raid, Bill Ried was flying at 40ft, to show why he was Sqn Ldr. Guy Gibson came and flew underneath him! the B-17 couldn't even do the same as the lancs that night, let alone fly that low! ...........

and the B-17s suffered huge losses on daylight raids without escort, there cam a point where they had to stop bombing completely because of the losses, they couldn't continue 'til the P-51 came along, without escort most bombers will be destroyed during the day, no matter how many guns she carried, and for the record in '44/45 the lanc did bomb substantially by day.............

sorry this was a really lame argument but i'm tired and i had to take me books upstairs and i can't be bothered to go get them!
 
yes my young apprentice, the Lanc could do a full on loop as described by several German night fighter friends.

In one instance the RAF crew tried to do the same config again but the Ju 88G-6 crew would not stand for it and blew the tail off with their four 2cm weapons. the German crew could not believe their eyes when the first loop was done. Admiration was given for the bravery of the RAF crew and their mount ..........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
50 year old airplane
Replies
12
Views
973
MIflyer
M
P
Cool plane names
Replies
4
Views
640
Greyman
G
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
875
Ivan1GFP
I
G
Ditching qualities of WW2 Aircraft
Replies
14
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
Menu
Log in
Register