B-17 vs. He-177 vs. Lancaster

[B-17engineer]

I am going with Lancaster, did a lot to win the war, what are your thoughts and why?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Of the 3 I go with the Lancaster. The Lancaster was a great aircraft and overall a better bomber in my opinion.

The B-17 comes in with close second for me. She carried less of a bomb load but she was one tough lady. The B-17 is my personal favorite bomber of the war, but again for me the better of the 3 has to be the Lancaster.

The He 177 in my opinion was a could have, should have, but did not aircraft. It had great potential but never achieved it. Had she started out with 4 seperate engines, she might have proven to be the better of the 3. She had a great bomb load and great performance.

[ToughOmbre]

Voted for my sentimental favorite, the B-17. The Fort and the Lancaster are very close; the Lancaster could carry a heavier bomb load and was probably every bit as good, or slightly better. But far more B-17s were built and flew, and although I have no stats to back this up, I would guess the Flying Fortress could absorb more punishment and return it's crews safely. Anyway, the pictures I've seen of battle-damaged B-17s that made it back to base makes me give the Fort the nod. Like I said, a thoroughly sentimental vote for my favorite aircraft of all time.

TO

[syscom3]

The B24 was best. I decisely proved it back in that thread from last year.

[pbfoot]

I agree we should renew this poll but we should add the 24 and the P108 Halifax and stirling as second best heavy of WW2

[Thorlifter]

Well, to answer your question, I'd go with the Lancaster. But I'm not clicking on the poll until I see if your going to add the B-24. If you do, I'm changing my vote.

As far as comments to all, I 100% agree with Adler.

[B-17engineer]

How do i add B-24?

[drgondog]

I hate these 'Best' discussions because they don't pose the selection criteria - lol.

Best in context of payload, speed, survivability, firepower, range?

Best in context of relative comparison of achievement in similar roles? How are we to judge a Lanc in context of daylight strategic bombing campaign from 1942 - 1945, or B-17 in Night raids?

I agree w/Syscom about the B-24 being ultimately better - but Tooey Spaatz argued the B-17 as the most important..why is my opinion better than his?

Best in combined attributes? I would tend to go Lanc but don't know how it would have performed survivability wise in 8th AF in 1943? Better/worse? How do we know?

And, like Chris why even bring the potentially very nice He 177 in the form of He 277 when it was largely a failure because of intial (and stupid) design specs

[comiso90]

Originally Posted by B-17engineer

How do i add B-24?

If you do that, you'll have to add the B-29 and then we may as well re-visit the heavy bomber thread.

.

[B-17engineer]

Okay i will add them when i find out how

And to answer your question drgondog yes best means basically the General Characteristics and simply what was a better bomber.

[syscom3]

The answers on which was best lay in the USSBS surveys.

[B-17engineer]

I made a new post with all the other bombers u mentioned

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

If you had searched the forums you would have seen that there is allready thread covering bombers.

[HoHun]

Hi B-17engineer,

The German test pilot Werner Lerche considered the airframe of the He 177 excellent, but after flying a captured B-24 which he didn't like much, he said that he'd have preferred a He 177 with the reliable, turbo-supercharged B-24 engines.

He also flew a captured B-17 and enjoyed it so much that he improvised a low-level airshow over a Luftwaffe field. He considered it so docile that it could give a "misleading" impression of great manoeuvrability Sheer inertia took its toll, which is the reason for the "misleading" bit of his comment ... but he considered the B-17's flying qualities equal to that of the Heinkel He 111, which appears to have had a great reputation as a pilot's aircraft in the Luftwaffe.

So much for the "enemy" perspective ... I hope that as a B-17 enthusiast, you'll find it interesting!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[V-1710]

I think the Lancaster was the finest low-altitude heavy bomber of the war, the B-17 was the best high altitude heavy bomber of the ETO, and the 177 could have been great if the paired engine idea was given up after the first test flight (cut short due to engine overheating).