Best Bomber

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but you couldn't stick a D into combat (although the C is actually the first war-going varient with the RAF's 90Sqn) and it's do the same job as a G??

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

but you couldn't stick a D into combat (although the C is actually the first war-going varient with the RAF's 90Sqn) and it's do the same job as a G??

Well, yes and no. It carried a 4800 lbs bombload and could tackle the same missions. But few were produced. By the time the war started for the USA, the E model was the B-17 with which combat units were generally outfitted, except a few Pacific units where the C's and D's were used mostly as recon planes. The USAAF never considered the C's or D's ready for combat, having purchased a relatively small number (about 70) for training and evaluation. The B-17E had already been specified and ordered in the Spring of 1941, and was the first volume production model.

The B-17E carried 8 x .50's plus one .30 in the nose, and up to 8000 lbs of bombs. Modifications from that point on were relatively minor.

=S=

Lunatic

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but the E isn't a pre-war varient..........

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

but the E isn't a pre-war varient..........

Actually it was. It was designed before the USA entered WWII. It was even in production and I think units were delivered before the USA entered WWII.

The point is the design was pre-war. Pre-war designs had more constraints than war-time designs. What could be done with an existing design was limited by the design and the production facilities. Usually those changes are relatively minor.

=S=

Lunatic

[the lancaster kicks ass]

it just so happens that in the case of a B-17 they were quite large changes...........

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

it just so happens that in the case of a B-17 they were quite large changes...........

How so? The wingspan remained about the same. The length remained about the same. The engines were the same. The major change was in armament, adding the top and belly turrets.

And besides, all this got done before the USA entered the war. From the E model on there were practically no changes of major significance other than increasing the structrual strength of the landing gear to support heavier payloads. Arguably, the G model was a step backwards - while it had a superior nose and (in later models) tail gun, it was 35 mph slower than the F model, and 55 mph slower than the E.

The B-17 is clearly a pre-war design, and it had no major modifications during its service life.

=S=

Lunatic

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i still think if you're gonna say "the B-17 was a pre war design" you post stats for a pre-war varient.............

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

i still think if you're gonna say "the B-17 was a pre war design" you post stats for a pre-war varient.............

Well, most "stats" relate to the E model, which was "pre-war" and the F, which was in production in the first months of the war and was almost identical to the E.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but you gave stats for the G..............

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

but you gave stats for the G..............

You're making a big deal out of nothing. The stats for the E/F are actually better than for the G except in terms of maximum short-range bomload (very infrequently used) and in terms of the chin and tail turrets, which we know were not really very effective anyway. What would you rather have, a slightly better nose and tail armament or 55 mph higher speed? Most B-17 crews stated they preferred the F over the G because it was faster.

=S=

Lunatic

[KraziKanuK]

Some trivia from 'Gunner'

Testing done by the USAAF found that the bullet pattern from a B-17 during ground testing had the following results for 12 rounds to 600yds:

ball turret > dia. 15' - 8.3mils
upper turret > dia. 21' - 11.7mils
chin turret > dia. 23' - 12.6 mils
waist(closed) dia. 26' - 14.3mils
side nose > dia. 34' - 18.7mils
tail turret > dia 45' - 25mils

For the B-24 it was:

ball turret > dia. 15' - 8.3mils
upper turret > dia. 20' - 11.2mils
nose turret > dia. 23' - 12.9mils (Emerson)
nose turret > dia. 35' - 19.3mils (Motor Prod.)
waist(closed) dia. 23' - 12.9mils
waist(open) dia. 63' - 35.6mils
tail turret > dia 35' - 19.3mils

I'm not sure how to interpret that KanuK. Can you explain what the data means?

=S=

Lunatic

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yes it's a bit strange.........

[acesman]

The Lancaster was designed as a day bomber but quickly switched to night bomber, a role in which it was much more effective. A Lancaster would have performed as well as the B17/B24 at day bombing, but was clearly superior at night.

Actually, the switch to night bombing/area bombing was a necessity, not a matter of superior technology. The US forces would have had to switch to night bombing too, if the fighter escorts had not been available later in the war.

Altogther, although the B29 was a better aircraft, it wasn't there when it was needed.

Hmmm, the B-29 did not have any bases to fly from till 1944. And, ironically, most of its work was done as a mid to low level night bomber. They tried daytime high altitude bombing, but the extreme jet stream over Japan made that totally ineffective. Night bombing with incendiary bombs was not "nice", but it was very effective, just ask the citizens of Yokohama (most of the city razed to the ground by bombing/firestorms). B-29's also performed very effective mining missions, sinking over 200,000 tons of shipping in April 1945 alone.
As a personal view, each bomber is made with certain missions in mind, and it is not a slam that a aircraft is does not perform a mission for which it was not intended. The requirements for the B-17, B-29 and Lancaster were each different, and the designers approached them in a different fashion. I also believe the poll should not lump 'tactial' and 'strategic' bombers together, since the missions that they can perform are much different. Can you imagine a Lancaster/B-17 trying to perform as a torpedo bomber?

[the lancaster kicks ass]

no but the lanc did oparate in the maritime patrole role..............

and as a matter of fact the night bombing policy was adopted before the lanc entered service, the lanc was designed around the nightbombing role........