PDA

View Full Version : What bomber is better and why



mcplkelly
04-20-2004, 04:21 PM
What bomber do you think was better. The American B-17 Bomber or the British Avro Lancaster. Try not to make this bias, put some knowledge into it. Like, for example, the B-17 could hit targets in daytime with accuracy, but carried a crap load. The Avro lancaster carried the largest bomb load of any bomber (until the introduction of the b-29 superfortress) and was used for special operations such as the dambuster raid, but flew at nigh and was not good at percision bombing as a result. Post you answers here with a reasion.

mcplkelly
04-20-2004, 04:21 PM
What bomber do you think was better. The American B-17 Bomber or the British Avro Lancaster. Try not to make this bias, put some knowledge into it. Like, for example, the B-17 could hit targets in daytime with accuracy, but carried a crap load. The Avro lancaster carried the largest bomb load of any bomber (until the introduction of the b-29 superfortress) and was used for special operations such as the dambuster raid, but flew at nigh and was not good at percision bombing as a result. Post you answers here with a reasion.

Chuck_Older
04-20-2004, 04:30 PM
Although the term used to describe the allied daylight bombing campaign in WWII was "precision bombing", in reality all bombing in WWII was Area Bombing.

Both aircraft had strengths and weaknesses. The B-17s weakness is lessened if you put 50 or more of them together in a bomber stream.

The Lancaster's weaknesses are lessened if you fly at night.

A country like the US could put literally hundreds of heavy bombers up (and the B-24 carried a larger load than the B-17 and for a longer range. It is surprising to most folks that the B-24 was made in larger numbers than the B-17), so a relatively small bomb load was OK. So the tactics and strategy of the two nations (US and UK) in their bombing campaigns has to be taken into consideration. The UK could use smaller numbers of Lancasters at night without really sacrificing bomb load delivered, which was good for night operations.

The question is: day or night bombing?

I'd choose day, as a battle of attrition can only end one way- in the favor of whoever has more resources and can bring them to bear. So I would choose daylight bombing, and the rugged B-17.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

mcplkelly
04-20-2004, 04:36 PM
I just call it carpet bombing. But the brits did feild large numbers of Lancasters each night, but couldn't hit small targets at night. The US was better at day, but with the lack of bombs the b-17's carried, if the dropped the bombs too early, they wouldn't hit the target. Cities were easy targets.

mcplkelly
04-20-2004, 04:39 PM
I just realized something. The American and world public was so furrios over the amount of civilian deaths due to bombings in cities in the recent war in iraq. But if you ask anybody about World War II causilties, they wouldn't care. Our allied nations pounded cities for the specific purpose to kill civilians, but no one cares, it was a world war. But yet, the world gets so mad over one death in modern war. God, our planet is full of hypocrits

Chuck_Older
04-20-2004, 04:43 PM
True, but the Lancaster didn't fly in a stream from one edge of the horizon to the other at night http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The inaccuracy of daylight bombing was rectified somewhat by the US by having lead bombers crewed by the most experienced and accurate bombardiers, and by having P-38 pathfinder aircraft lead formations. When the lead bombers dropped, everyone dropped. Accuracy went up. Still not precision, but it went up http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cities could be easy targets, but the Germans are clever folks. At night, they would light up false 'cities' to fool night bombers into dropping far away from actual cities, and by day, a smokescreen was often employed.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

Chuck_Older
04-20-2004, 04:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mcplkelly:
I just realized something. The American and world public was so furrios over the amount of civilian deaths due to bombings in cities in the recent war in iraq. But if you ask anybody about World War II causilties, they wouldn't care. Our allied nations pounded cities for the specific purpose to kill civilians, but no one cares, it was a world war. But yet, the world gets so mad over one death in modern war. God, our planet is full of hypocrits<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I recommend to you an excellent book, entitled "Clash of Wings" by Walter J Boyne.

In WWII, US civilians were actually horrified by some of the events that took place during the bombing campaign. US Generals got sacked. But out purpose wasn't really to just kill civilians. There were actually strategic targets beyond the simple populace involved..mostly. I can't seriously say it wasn't always for military reasons. But in hindsight, did bombing London break the Brit's will to fight? Hardly. So it is difficult to say that we thought just bombing civilian centers was a means to end the war.

Before the war, the bomber was very feared, and it was assumed that just one attack would kill so many civilians that the government would collapse as the populace demanded peace.

We like to think we have kindler, gentler machine guns now. Dead is still dead, though http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

mcplkelly
04-20-2004, 04:51 PM
Both side did help end the war faster. The Americans bombed by day, and the Brits by night. Constant bombing was bad for morale of the german military. Also the brits sent mosquitos ahead to mark targets with flares and incinerary bombs.

lbhskier37
04-20-2004, 04:59 PM
Back on the topic at hand, the B24 was the best. It had the best balance of bomb load and rugged good lookshttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig6.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

Chuck_Older
04-20-2004, 05:01 PM
Certainly. I am not implying that the British nighttime bombing effort was not crucial. I think you have misunderstood me.

I am saying that the simple bombing of German urban centers without distinct strategic targets (ie: a population center rather than a ball bearing plant) was as unsuccesful as the Blitz was. In fact, German production increased rather than decreased, as a testimony to how unbroken the German spirit was. Plants could be rebuilt or moved. Tooling was different, tooling would need to be remade. But just killing a bunch of German civilians was as effective as killing a bunch of English civilians was. But if their ability to produce weapons of war is reduced, now, that might do something. Trouble was, the Germans somehow redoubled their efforts.

Did you know that for a good portion of WWII, the Germans were on a nearly peacetime work schedule? And they never mobilized their female workforce like the US. Slave labor was used, but unskilled labor is bad enough. Unskilled slave labor? Oh, that must have been almost as good as nothing in most cases, or maybe the next best thing to nothing. And then as the war wore on, all but the most infirm or most necessary workers were inducted into the army

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

Dmitri9mm
04-20-2004, 05:03 PM
I'll tell you what was the best bomber. the TU2S fast, large load for an a/c of that size, extremely rugged and reliable, and a joy to fly.
No seriously, if I have to chose between the B-17 and the Lancaster, we have to look at their respective purposes, because they were both build to match quite specific requests.

The Lancaster was from the start build to carry the largest possible bombload for the longest distance and deliver them with reasonable precision, to fit the English strategy of terror-bombing of all the larger German cities. The only difference between the Bomber Commands strategy and the "Blitz" strategy of the Luftwaffe was that Bomber Command actually succeded, at the end of the war 52% of all housing in Germany was destroyed, the German productivity was brought down by less than 25%. In this aspect there is no doubt that the Lancaster fulfilled it's purpose.

The B-17 was designed for a very special specification that called for a so called "Flying Fortress" contrary to popular belief this name had nothing to do with the B-17s defensive armament. The idea was, that in the event of a shipborne invasion of the US, the B-17s would serve as a sort of long-range "guns" doing pin-point precision-bombing of the enemy ships and landing barges. Thus serving as costal fortresses.
This idea was not really realistic, and the B-17 was developed as a long-range strategic bomber, able to carry only a relatively small load over great distances, but also able to deliver the load with great precission. The only problem was, that in order to make a pin point drop, the bomb-run had to be carried out in broad daylight at great risk. Therefore the massive defensive armament was installed, also helped by the very rugged structure of the B-17 (which the B-24 lacked though it was as heavily armed, and could carry a larger load a longer distance).
All in all it can be said that the B-17 didn't quite fulfill the role it was meant to have. It was by no means able to protect itself and losses only declined when long rage escort fighters guided them all the way to the target and back. Please note: I'm not saying that any other strategic bomber could have done this.
The B-17 however did accomplish some great missions of knocking out German industry centres, and they also got their share of the sweet taste of terror-bombing, most famous is the bombing of Dresden (Remember this next time you commemorate Apple-crumple-day on september 11th.)

Well that was a long post, but conclusively I'll say that the Lancaster was so much more effective at ruining peoples lives and homes that I'm gonna name the old AVRO-bird the winner.

http://www.afilm.dk/main/3D/images/terkel/terkel_still_04.jpg
"I g¥r aftes m¸dte jeg en dreng der stod og gr¦d/ han kunne ikke finde hjem, og han var m¸rker¦d/ han sagde: "K¦re onkel Stuart kan du hj¦lpe mig?"/ Jeg trak min kniv og r¥bte: B˜H! og straks s¥ fandt han vej!"
First Danish 100% computer-animated movie: "Terkel i knibe"

Chuck_Older
04-20-2004, 05:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Back on the topic at hand, the B24 was the best. It had the best balance of bomb load and rugged good lookshttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, but it's not a choice http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And this is certainly on topic, any discussion of "best bomber" would have to include the way it was used.

The Japanese Betty was almost a perfect bomber- IF air superiority had first been acheived. See how strategy makes or breaks the Betty? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

mcplkelly
04-20-2004, 05:09 PM
When i meant best bomber, i was implying that of two of the big players in the war (not saying that other countries are not big players, just compairing the two). The Lancaster and B-17 are both considered one of the best bombers ever made. There were meny other excellant bombers in the war, but lets focous on these two planes.

Chuck_Older
04-20-2004, 05:12 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dmitri9mm:


The B-17 was designed for a very special specification that called for a so called "Flying Fortress" contrary to popular belief this name had nothing to do with the B-17s defensive armament. The idea was, that in the event of a shipborne invasion of the US, the B-17s would serve as a sort of long-range "guns" doing pin-point precision-bombing of the enemy ships and landing barges. Thus serving as costal fortresses.
[QUOTE]

I have never heard of that at all, and I won't just say it's wrong, but I will disagree on this point for one reason:

Between the wars, it was assumed that "the bomber will always get though". Most multi engined aircraft of the between wars period had performance great enough that an enemy interceptor could not be alerted, take off, and intercept the bomber- they would have to already be airborne.

This coupled with the fact that the four engined bomber's range being greater than that of any single engined plane at the time, tells me that the B-17 was supposed to have zero escort no matter what the duty, coastal defense or long range bomber.
Plus, back then even the US Coast Guard was part of the Navy. Why would the Department of the Navy accept a situation where the US Army provided coastal defense? The US Navy represented US Might in the world. I can't beleive that the USAAC provided a defense for the US coast that the US Navy was supposed to be providing. The Navy had it's own planes, dive bombers and torpedo planes, and had naval bases on the coasts. not to mention the US caost Gaurd and US navy's ships- don't forget that the Aircraft carrier was not the worry in the '30s and early '40s- it was the Battleship.

I shall have to look into that more deeply. Where did you come by this info, Dmitri?

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

Dmitri9mm
04-20-2004, 05:19 PM
To Chuck_Older:
The information on the B-17 can be found in a book called "The concise guide to American aircraft of World War II" written by David Mondey, it is not just a pocket book, most of the a/c it describes I had never heard of before, and has some 10 pageson the B-17.
I consider it fairly reliable, although Oleg has proved it wrong on one occasion concerning a P-40M matter. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.afilm.dk/main/3D/images/terkel/terkel_still_04.jpg
"I g¥r aftes m¸dte jeg en dreng der stod og gr¦d/ han kunne ikke finde hjem, og han var m¸rker¦d/ han sagde: "K¦re onkel Stuart kan du hj¦lpe mig?"/ Jeg trak min kniv og r¥bte: B˜H! og straks s¥ fandt han vej!"
First Danish 100% computer-animated movie: "Terkel i knibe"

Dmitri9mm
04-20-2004, 05:32 PM
I have found the book now, and I coute: "Headlines on the following day announced the new "15-ton Flying Fortress", and seizing upon the name the company had it registered as the official name of its Model 299. Contrary to popular belief, this was not because of its defensive armament, but because it was procured as an aircraft which would be operated as a mobile Flying Fortress to protect America's coastline..."
The text also explain the concept of the strategy involved - too long to qoute http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
But Chuck_Older you forget one thing: When the idea of countering an attack on US shores with planes was first born in the early 20s. At that time the USN didn't have many planes yet, and certainly did not see them as a major factor in war! Therefore they had nothing against the USAAC toying with their plans of Flying Fortresses. At the time when the B-17 first flew, this of course had changed, but the strategic idea remained the same.

Sorry for my awful spelling and grammar but I'm not a native English-speaker http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://www.afilm.dk/main/3D/images/terkel/terkel_still_04.jpg
"I g¥r aftes m¸dte jeg en dreng der stod og gr¦d/ han kunne ikke finde hjem, og han var m¸rker¦d/ han sagde: "K¦re onkel Stuart kan du hj¦lpe mig?"/ Jeg trak min kniv og r¥bte: B˜H! og straks s¥ fandt han vej!"
First Danish 100% computer-animated movie: "Terkel i knibe"

Chuck_Older
04-20-2004, 06:03 PM
Dmitri-

I have this book as well http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Mondey goes on the relate that the concept of the aircraft as a "mobile flying fortress to protect America's coastline" is "a concept which needs explanation" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

He then goes on tho explain that the Navy did want to prevent the USAAC from having the bomber. The YB-17 had the original service task of coastal defense. He also says "this explanation anticipates the story", which indicates the Army was up to something and had the answers before they were asked.

I cannot refute what Mondey's words say, but I can however suggest that the story the way he told it may not be 100% accurate. I also would like to point out that the actual defensive tactic of coastal use was not defined by Mondey.

In this way I feel confident in saying that the Fortress had it's name based on neither it's defensive armament, nor it's "role" (the USAAC pulled many tricks back then, like calling fighter aircraft "interceptors" to get congressional approval) as a semi-static coastal defense weapon.

Rather, it got it's name because it was intended to not need fighter protection, no matter if it was used in coastal US waters, or a war in Europe.
[edit- I say this not because of it's weapons, but because of the fact that it's speed was competitive enough with contemporary fighters that it couldn't be intercepted]

I like Mondey's books but they are not 100% accurate in telling the whole story.

The way he states it, it seems to be named "Flying Fortress" because of it's odd original mission. I say it was because of it's nature, it was supposed to be independant of fighter escort while ON that mission. I could still esily be wrong, but I distrust Mondey's relation of the story enough to twist and turn the idea around in my head to try and get what he was trying to say rather than how he said it.

The idea of a static defense of heavy bombers is one that baffles me, considering that US warships could do the job- but this must also have baffled congress and the Navy at the time.

I have no doubt that this was a way for the US Army to get a weapon it wanted under the guise of a mission that really didn't exist at the time- much like the "interceptor" term that was used to fool Congress into thinking it was a defensive, rather than offensive, aircraft.

The idea for the coastal defense may have been from the '20s, but the older Boeing monoplane bombers didn't fly until the '30s. Specifically, the Boeing 299 didn't even get designed until June of '34. In regards to the Navy "letting" the US army do what it wanted in regards to coastal defense, I think you may be underestimating not only US inter-service rivalry, but the fact that the Navy was the Right Arm of US military power, especially since an Army would have to travel over water to fight in almost every instance. Don't forget that it wasn't very many years earlier that the US Navy legitimised US military power on the Barbary coast http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif No, I really think the Army pulled a fast one.

PS your English is more than passably good. You are more conscious of it than most native English speakers who post here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

[This message was edited by Chuck_Older on Tue April 20 2004 at 05:17 PM.]

Dmitri9mm
04-20-2004, 06:23 PM
All right Chuck_Older I read the entire article now, and I guess you're right. It doesn't tell the whole story, I think I must've read some more on this, but I can't remember where.
A funny thing I just found:
A sort of almanak/year-book from the Danish publisher "Politiken" of the year 1940.
The book contains a lot of text about the war (remember: Denmark had just recently been occupied). In a chapter dealing with the "machines of war" the book uses the term "Flying Fortress" about the Armstrong-Whitworth Whitley! Not exactly what we'd call a Fortress right? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.afilm.dk/main/3D/images/terkel/terkel_still_04.jpg
"I g¥r aftes m¸dte jeg en dreng der stod og gr¦d/ han kunne ikke finde hjem, og han var m¸rker¦d/ han sagde: "K¦re onkel Stuart kan du hj¦lpe mig?"/ Jeg trak min kniv og r¥bte: B˜H! og straks s¥ fandt han vej!"
First Danish 100% computer-animated movie: "Terkel i knibe"

Chuck_Older
04-20-2004, 06:33 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


I still don't know for certain that the Fortress wasn't so named just because of coastal defense, though. It's just such a confused story that Mondey tells I don't trust it.

Maybe someone else has more reliable info?? I have very limited reference on bombers here.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

Snow_Wolf_
04-20-2004, 06:39 PM
B-25 since it was small rugged got a good bomb load and the fact the bird can be modify for other versions mean something i would compare to it as the American version of the Ju-88 that the germans have.

http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~jtsiekki/mono2.gif

Eagle_361st
04-20-2004, 06:39 PM
The P-47 owned them all. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Just ask Discovery wings. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

~S!
Eagle
Commanding Officer 361st vFG
www.361stvfg.com (http://www.361stvfg.com)
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1079.jpg

Chuck_Older
04-20-2004, 06:45 PM
B-17 or Lancaster...Il-10 isn't an option, neither is the Stuka http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Hey, how come Eagle gets a title? funny guy? How come I'm not Clashophile?? I'm thinking payola is involved.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

Eagle_361st
04-20-2004, 06:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
B-17 or Lancaster...Il-10 isn't an option, neither is the Stuka http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Hey, how come Eagle gets a title? funny guy? How come I'm not Clashophile?? I'm thinking payola is involved.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My witty banter and silly frolicking got this title, plus a $100 to my favorite Mod. You know who you are. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I am sure it wont last forever but I like having it for as long as he lets me keep it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

~S!
Eagle
Commanding Officer 361st vFG
www.361stvfg.com (http://www.361stvfg.com)
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1079.jpg

Chuck_Older
04-20-2004, 06:54 PM
Hmmpf. I just wish more of your frolicking included "pants"

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

TAGERT.
04-20-2004, 06:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mcplkelly:
What bomber do you think was better. The American B-17 Bomber or the British Avro Lancaster. Try not to make this bias, put some knowledge into it. Like, for example, the B-17 could hit targets in daytime with accuracy, but carried a crap load. The Avro lancaster carried the largest bomb load of any bomber (until the introduction of the b-29 superfortress) and was used for special operations such as the dambuster raid, but flew at nigh and was not good at percision bombing as a result. Post you answers here with a reasion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Before that question can be addressed you would have to first provide me with *your* definition of *best*.. How many variables are you willing to consider?

Once you begin to think about your difinition of what is best you will realise that it depends on the airplane *AND* the task it was employed to do..

If you get that far.. hopefully you will realise that *best* was different for each country and thier aiplanes..

At which point you should realise that a blanket statement of BEST is worthless and silly and means nothing to anyone who has a clue.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

Eagle_361st
04-20-2004, 06:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Hmmpf. I just wish more of your frolicking included "pants"

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me too, I never can remember where they are. But you must admit I do have the nicest pair of Action Johnnie P-47 Underoos you have ever seen. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

~S!
Eagle
Commanding Officer 361st vFG
www.361stvfg.com (http://www.361stvfg.com)
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1079.jpg

Chuck_Older
04-20-2004, 06:58 PM
Tagert-

No no no no. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

He asked "What bomber is better and why"

not "what was the best bomber"

There's two choices: Avro Lancaster, and Boeing B-17. Which do you think is the better bomber?


Eagle-

My ladder is broken. I haven't been peeking in windows at night for a while, but I'll take your word for it

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

Arm_slinger
04-20-2004, 07:16 PM
It depends on the use you wish to undertake.

If you take a lanc up during day light, and in formations it may have been every bit as effective as the B17, maybe more so in terms of bomb load, of course this may be brought down a bit by the bomb sight not being as accurate as the Norden so that is one trade off.
Now if you were to take B17's up at night they wouldnt be as effective as a Lanc as the lanc was well equiped for night time operations, as the RAF basically set the way for modern avionics (see my sig), a fort would be it is possible to say, as effective as a RAF bomber in BC in the early days of the bomber campaign.

Types of target- thee lanc i think may win here as it could carry a wider range of bombs. This is a bit hollow im afraid as i dont know about bombs the Fort could carry other than the 500 pound and 1000 pound GP's. The lanc still might hold the edge given it could carry more load

Survivability- the Fort could take a hammering beyond belief and keep going, the Lanc on the other hand is not clear. It could take a beating but this is not as well documented as the RAF did not wish to dishonour the dead by showing off what they had to suffer. I feel the Fort may win this.

Formations- the fort would be better due to alot to very powerful .50's versus the rifle calibred lancs.

With these quick considerations i think it is fair to say that these two aircraft are generally balanced. There are no facts of figures used here, just common sence and considerations to some of the main aspects.

What you need to consider though is that both aircraft were designed and built to be the best at their intended task. Given how the lanc was later used to bomb at night, this does not mean it is a poor day light operator, it just means that tactics were changed. Therefore it may be even prudent to look at the tactics for these aircraft, rather than the aircraft themselves http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Hope this helps the discussion http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I still prefer the lanc though being a Tommy :Phttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

242Sqn_Kye-
Pilot of 242 Squadron

Sim lover?, want something new? Then look at "Target for Tonight the definitive night bombing simulation ever, featuring the RAF's Bomber Command.

www.nightbomber.com/forums (http://www.nightbomber.com/forums)
Also the home of 242 Squadron "Baders Bastards"

mcplkelly
04-20-2004, 08:15 PM
The brits turned to night raids for two reasions. It was harder for fighters to find them. The second, the brits did really bad in daylight raids. The Lanc had two .303 mgs in the frontal turret, two .303 mgs in the upper turret, and four .303s in the rear turret (later replaced by two .50s)
http://www.avweb.com/newspics/sidsland_lancaster1_lg.jpg


http://airbase.ru/cache/hangar/select/mil/bombers/img/640x480/lan0024.jpg
http://www.pinetreeline.org/photos/tofino/tofin202.jpg
http://www.theage.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1058035072996_2003/07/16/crew.jpg
the B-17 had two .50 mg's in the nose, one .50 mg in the right nose, two .50 mg in the upper turret, one .50 mg on each side of the fusalage, and two .50s in the rear, and two .50's in the under belly turret.
http://lynx.uio.no/jon/gif/aircraft/b17.gif
I know its hard to campare night and day bombers, but try your best. Though the Lancaster bomber is probible the most famous bomber ever made, it suffered heavy causilities. About 7500 bombers were made, but almost half, about 3700, were destroyed over Europe. The rear gunner on the plane was usually the first causility when fighters attacked. Though the Lancaster held more bombs than any other bomber, it had one of the highest death tolls. Im not sure about stats for the b-17, but i can only assume it was similar in terms of causilities. No plane is bullet proof, so people were hit by bullets. And stop talking about other aircraft. were focoused on the Lancaster and b-17

[This message was edited by mcplkelly on Tue April 20 2004 at 07:25 PM.]

ImpStarDuece
04-21-2004, 01:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:



Plus, back then even the US Coast Guard was part of the Navy. Why would the Department of the Navy accept a situation where the US Army provided coastal defense? The US Navy represented US Might in the world. I can't beleive that the USAAC provided a defense for the US coast that the US Navy was supposed to be providing. The Navy had it's own planes, dive bombers and torpedo planes, and had naval bases on the coasts. not to mention the US caost Gaurd and US navy's ships- don't forget that the Aircraft carrier was not the worry in the '30s and early '40s- it was the Battleship
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bill Gunstons "Fighting Aircraft of WW2" states that the B-17 was designed to meet a (May1943) US Army Air Corps specification for a multi engined anti-shipping bomber to defend the nation against enemy fleets.

Don't know how accurate or reliable that is but it's all i could find on the B-17 being a maritime bomber.

As for the name "Forteress" STewart Wilsons Aircraft of WW2 claims that B-17 were deleivered to the RAF as Fortresses, so maybe the RAF named it!

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

konstantinl1
04-21-2004, 02:04 AM
I've now mentioned him twice today (I promise I'll stop it) but my grandpa flew in Lancasters during the war. He was a navigator.

He flew Stirlings, Halifaxes and Lancasters and he told me that the crews far prefered the Halifax. The reason was pretty simple.

My grandpa was shot up twice by the Germans (I can't remember if it was flak or fighters) but the first time in the Halifax the aircraft made it back to British soil and belly landed. The second time, in a Lancaster, the plane went down over Holland with only 2 survivors. The Halifax was just a much tougher and safer aircraft.

The other thing I remember him telling me that the guns on all British bombers were effectively useless. Sometimes the tracer would scare of a less experienced pilot but in reality they were inaccurate and even if they hit anything they wouldn't do much damage.

He flew 50 combat missions over Germany, and then served in Palestine and Ceylon. What a guy.

WhiskeyRiver
04-21-2004, 02:52 AM
The two bombers were good designs for their respective roles.

I talked to a pilot who flew both B-17's and B-24's at the Pima Air Museum once about the survivability of the B-24 vs the B-17. He pointed out 2 main factors that made the B-24 take higher losses: The wing and flying characteristics.

The first was the "Davis" wing of the B-24. He said that even minor damage to the wing could cause it to fail. It also lost efficiency rapidly above 18,000 feet. This forced B-24 groups to fly lower and thus be vulnerable to AAA fire.

The second reason was the stability of the B-24 in regards to formation flying. Holding tight formation was much more difficult in the B-24. This made fighter attacks easier. I think this may have been caused by turbulence from the twin tails both sitting in the prop wash.

As far as the Lancaster goes, I think that it would not have faired well as a daylight bomber because of it's weak defensive armament and inline engines. It was a great night bomber though.

The B-29 gets my vote as the best bomber of the war hands down.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

Red_Storm
04-21-2004, 03:43 AM
The Boeing B-17 or the Avro Lancaster? I'd say the Junkers Ju-88 was more effective than either of those two. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Prof.Wizard
04-21-2004, 05:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Red_Storm:
The Boeing B-17 or the Avro Lancaster? I'd say the Junkers Ju-88 was more effective than either of those two. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Especially in some of its later versions, the Ju-88 was a real killer. Nimble and vertical-bombing capable as well.

A nice bomber overall, who knows what might have happened in the BoB if Germany had more of these instead of Do-17s and He-111s (which although sturdy were of less capabilities).

-----------------------------
Me-163's HWK 109-509 Rocket Engine
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/HWK109509.jpg

Afreaka
04-21-2004, 06:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
True, but the Lancaster didn't fly in a stream from one edge of the horizon to the other at night http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The inaccuracy of daylight bombing was rectified somewhat by the US by having lead bombers crewed by the most experienced and accurate bombardiers, and by having P-38 pathfinder aircraft lead formations. When the lead bombers dropped, everyone dropped. Accuracy went up. Still not precision, but it went up http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cities could be easy targets, but the Germans are clever folks. At night, they would light up false 'cities' to fool night bombers into dropping far away from actual cities, and by day, a smokescreen was often employed.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Chuck_Older, to make your balanced contribution to the debat almost complet I have found this short story that underpins your claim. Namely the two very different approches to bombing of german cities and industry. Sir Arthur 'Bomber' Harris specifically is a character worth studying when reading up on the subject. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/area_bombing_03.shtml

Rex Kramer(Airplane, 1980): Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

mcplkelly
04-21-2004, 03:00 PM
Look, there are only two choices available in this poll, and the Ju-88 is not one of them. Also it had two engines so couldn't make the distance the Lancaster and B-17 could go.