The P-108/B-17/Lancaster Thread

[Gemhorse]

Well I'm very 'pro-Lancaster', alotta NZ'ers flew them, and as I've posted before, they became a legend because of developments to carry the Big Bombs etc., and Pathfinding and sheer bloody courage & tenacity doing the Nightshift. - But I don't negate the B.17's contribution, they did drop half a million tons of ordinance too, but their experiences were instrumental to the B.29 development - The Merlin was an awesome engine and the Shackleton was the Griffon-version of a Lancaster:-My ONLY regret was the Lancaster's guns; .50 cals should've been installed earlier, and 4 in the back, not two, and AP/incendiary ammo used. - But none of 'em ALL, were immune to flak...

[cheddar cheese]

if they used the b-17 at night, do you reckon it'd have had more success?

[Gemhorse]

Could it carry more bombs than a Lancaster ? Not without making substantial changes in weight & crew to become a 'nightbomber'. Like I said, I don't negate the work they did in daylight, and as said in past postings, that was courageous & skillful work. - The RAF learned from 1940-42, that daylight wasn't the way, just like the Luftwaffe did.- The B.17 was a success in that it paved the way in daylight, but part of that success was helped by escorts like the Mustang. The Mosquito nightfighters were the only assistance the Lancasters & Co. had...

[cheddar cheese]

yup, the mosquito was also effective as bomber too though

[Gemhorse]

Further to that, the RAF had 20 B.17C's in 1941 to try-out and they were found wanting.- They ended up being relegated to secondary duties.The RAF without bias preferrred it's own aircraft as better bombing platforms, but did acquire a further 170 of latter variants and they did great work as weather reconnaisance and Coastal Command / Air Sea Rescue. They were easy to fly, reliable and capable of absorbing massive damage and getting home- on that alone it earned it's legendary reputation. -IMHO the Lancaster was a better bomber - I've read enough about both aircraft to convince myself of that ...

[cheddar cheese]

yes, the lancaster was a better bomber, but the b-17 was a better plane

[Gemhorse]

Yeah, so was the B.25, and it was pretty well armed and fairly versatile.

[Gemhorse]

What do you mean by better plane???

[cheddar cheese]

better all-round

[cheddar cheese]

better all-round

[Gemhorse]

Better all round like a ball ? Define better 'all round'....How could an aircraft that had a propensity to burst into flames because they didn't use self-sealing fuel tanks, for example, be possibly construed as a better 'all round' plane?- Getta grip !!!

[the lancaster kicks ass]

1) i think the lancaster was the better alround plane

the mosquito was also effective as bomber too though

2) they didn't carry bombs on night bombing escorts..................

[plan_D]

The Lancaster was better than the B-17, and I think I read a slight passage on the B-17 which was due to be given to the RAF when the RAF turned it down.
The B-17s selling point was its high altitude until the RAF informed them that the German aircraft like the Me109 performed better at higher altitudes so it put the bombers at a disadvantage, and at a pointless height.

I also read a thing on the B-17 gunships which didn't carry bombs just a lot more powerful armament but were too slow to keep up with the formation, so they gave up on the idea.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

doesn't supprise me...............

[Gemhorse]

Another aspect of Lancaster legend was the Mk.II's, which were powered by Hercules engines. Some pilots loved them, they were faster but didn't quite have the bombing height of the Mk.I's & III's, mainly used by Canadian Sqn.'s. They filled a gap in Merlin supply until the Merlin-Packard's became available. - Of all the British heavy bombers, the Lancaster was the easiest to fly, according to Ferry-pilots, who flew them all...