PDA

View Full Version : The Lanc or the B17?



Stickmonkey1
09-29-2004, 03:49 AM
Just a little question about people here...

Which would you have rather flown? The Lanc or the Fort? I have seen interviews on programs such as "The World at War" where Fort crews say they wouldn't have had it any other way: they preferred daylight raids in tight formation over night raids more or less on your own.

On another note, having read both "Luck and a Lancaster" and Diaries of the 95th Bomb Group, who had the better tactics later in the war?

To explain...

Lancs flew daylight sorties to the Ruhr with large fighter escort in a "loose gaggle". Would this have been preferable to a close formation with regards flak? As a flak gunner would a sigle large formation (as in B17s) be a better target than a stream (Lancs)?

Just some thoughts...

Oh, and I'd prefer to fly the lanc - although I am british, so not exactly objective http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Resident_Jock
09-29-2004, 04:00 AM
Loose formations do better against flak but don't saturate the target as well and are easy prey for interceptors (hence the very large numbers of escorts). Box formations maximize defense against any airborne opposition while trying to spread out the vertical range the flak guns fired at. Unfortunately this also meant that while the guns didn't have to zero in on only one altitude, they also had a bigger chance of hitting things in the comparably tight box.

The tactics were part of a different philosophy and the functionality of the aircraft in question. Lancs didn't have defensive armaent that compared to B-17's and so needed to use different formations for optimal survivability.

WOLFMondo
09-29-2004, 04:17 AM
I guess loss rates would indicate if night missions were more survivable than daylight missions. Either way, with path finder mossies the RAF did ok with there night time raids.

I'd pick a lanc, the B17 is limited to 8000lbs ordanance and that short bomb bay can't take big/odd shaped bombs, the Lanc on the other hand could take 4000lbs cookies and other oddly shaped or very heavy bombs upto the 22,000lbs Grandslam bomb.

Aaron_GT
09-29-2004, 04:44 AM
"Loose formations do better against flak but don't saturate the target as well"

Each RAF bomber did individual sighting and aiming rather than drop-on-leader that became the standard mode in the 8th AF later in the war (it started off with individual sighting, but if you are in tight formation it isn't really necessary). So the targeting of each bomber in the RAF was decent. The argument is that if each bomber targets individually that it is possible that they will tend to all target a series of highly visible points rather than distributing bombs over the whole target area. This might well be the case in daylight raids, although the late war daylight RAF raids showed good target saturation. Night raids are different, of course, and formation flying not an option.

By the end of the war derivatives of the Lancaster were coming out with fairly decent armament (twin .50 front and rear, twin 20mm upper turrent, and some experimental single ventral 20mm mountings) but they missed the war.

Longjocks
09-29-2004, 05:27 AM
Technical facets aside, the Lancaster is the well-loved underdog and the winner in my book.

Beirut
09-29-2004, 05:43 AM
Given that the Lancaster could deliver a gift that the B-17 couldn't carry in a wet dream, I'd go with the British Beauty.

Also, the sound. Nothing can compare to the sound of four Merlins roaring at once.

F19_Orheim
09-29-2004, 06:07 AM
I only go for looks...: Lanc!!!

NorrisMcWhirter
09-29-2004, 06:09 AM
Hi,

Without doubt, the Lanc. B17 can come later.

Cheers,
Norris

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
09-29-2004, 06:25 AM
Very difficult choice

I would like to fly Lanc but I hate flying at night.

Would like B-17 cos we already have the model, but I cant fly tight formation very well in anything http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

frankly I would welcome any flyable four engine

ohh sod it I go for lancaster cos its ugly and has kick azz pay load http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

georgeo76
09-29-2004, 06:32 AM
hehe, early posts are all for lanc, expect to see more votes for the '17 as the US wakes up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

I wouldn't want to fly either. From what I understand, the loss rates for both aircraft were dismal, but the Lancaster stands out, because IIRC you were statistically guaranteed to be shot down during your tour. That and the fact that I hate 3rd shift work, would have me pulling the yolk on the Boeing.

Sarpedon688
09-29-2004, 06:44 AM
Definatly the Lanc I hate being a flack magnet in the game and I imagine I'd like it less in RL

TC_Stele
09-29-2004, 08:45 AM
B-17 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif


No, realistically I'd probably take the Lanc too.

Oh shux, now wait. Now I don't know. 17 was better armored though, right? But then the formations it were in were easy flak targets? Despite it being during the day and carrying less of a load than what Lanc could maybe i'd go 17.

Aaron_GT
09-29-2004, 09:29 AM
"Given that the Lancaster could deliver a gift that the B-17 couldn't carry in a wet dream, I'd go with the British Beauty."

Maximum payloads weren't all that different, to be honest, but in terms of typically carried payloads on a mission to Germany the Lancaster typically carried at least twice as much.

However the B17G could carry (for a range of around 400 miles) just over 20,000 lbs, with the wing racks carrying a 4000lb cookie each. It was very ungainly loaded that much, though with 12,800lb carried internally (max internal load).
Typical loads was 4,800lb.

Typical load for the Lancaster was 10,000 to 14,000lb, depending on the mix of bombs (less weight if more incendiary cannisters were carried).

Aaron_GT
09-29-2004, 09:36 AM
"I wouldn't want to fly either. From what I understand, the loss rates for both aircraft were dismal, but the Lancaster stands out, because IIRC you were statistically guaranteed to be shot down during your tour. "

The loss rates for the RAF at night and the USAAF 8th AF during the day were typically 5-8% until 1945, with peaks in the double digits. There wasn't much to choose.

Your chances of surviving N missions is (1-p)^N where p is the chance of being shot down (say 5%).

So to have an evens chance of surviving, (1-p)^N=0.5, and solve for N (taking logs)
log0.5 = Nlog(1-p), or N=log0.5/log0.95, N=-0.301/-0.022, N=13 missions.

Or after 25 missions chance or surviving is 28% at 5% loss rate, 12% at 8% loss rate.

The RAF didn't have the concept of a tour - you flew until for some reason you weren't flying night bombers any more - wounded, transferred, cracked under the pressure, or died, pretty much. You had a chance of being rotated out for R&R, though, at least.

Ankanor
09-29-2004, 09:44 AM
You should compare them on the same basis, B-17 day in loose boxes with plenty of Escort, or Lancs on close formations. I know it didn't go that way in RL, but nevertheless... And either way, I would choose B-17. Way more tough bird. and better armed and armored, too.

Snuffy Smith
09-29-2004, 10:06 AM
OK, I'll risk a reply and a comment. First, to answer the questions asked: I would go for a Fortress as more versitle in a varity of gaming situations. I just think it more fun to be able to see in daylight all the scenery and goings on, and the Fortress was a more general purpose plane that saw action over a greater area. The Lanc (a very pretty airplane) was much more specialized in purpose.

Now, for the game in future, I'd ask first for a B-24, as really the most widely used 4-engine heavy of the war: bomber, long range recon, ASW, transport. My real desire is a B-29.

On the heavies in WW2, the stratgic surveys done after the war found: essentially, both the RAF Bomber Command and 8th Air Force campaigns against Germany itself were failures. What they came down to was putting bombers up as bait to draw the Luftwaffe into a battle of attrition. This was done by deliberate decision to attack the civil population: de-housing the German working population. If I recall correctly, at one point in the campaign more bomber crews were being lost than civilians being killed.

I think the services with the highest lot rates breakdown something like this:

U-Boats: 70%

RAF Bomber Command: 65%

8th Air Force: 60% (8th Air Force had more casualties than the US Marine Corps)

Kamikaze Corps: 55% (They tried to do better, but they had trouble getting planes up and to the target).

Canada, due to the horrific losses of WW1, made an attempt to invest in lower risk types of forces and made a large investment in Bomber Command, which was thought to be less dangerous than the infantry. In the end, RCAF casualties began to approach those of the entire Canadian Army, even though it was a smaller service.

BSS_Goat
09-29-2004, 10:16 AM
I thought I read the Lanc was extremely hard to get out of if you had to bail....not sure.

Zeus-cat
09-29-2004, 11:00 AM
Tough choice. Keep in mind that the planes were not built to fly the same missions. B-17s were built for daylight raids and were covered in machine guns. Lancasters were built for night raids and had considerably less defensive firepower.

I look at the question like this; do you want to see what is trying to kill you? If you answer yes, then the B-17 would be your choice. You have a lot of guns to defend yourself. Whether you can do that effectively is another question. You are also vulnerable to flak. However, if you don't want to see what is trying to kill you, then the Lancaster would be your choice. Flying low level at night you are prone to hitting ground objects and lucky shots from ground based AAA or even ground troops. You would also be vulnerable to radar-guided interceptors that you probably wouldn't know were there until they fired.

I don't think I can make this choice. Neither sounds all that great to me.

The Lancaster was able to deliver bigger bombloads with a smaller crew. In that sense, it makes it a better plane IMO.

The Lancaster had serious drawbacks though. I gave Dubbo a book on Lancasters last month so maybe he can fill in some details, but the only escape for crew members in the rear of the plane was the entry door. This door was near the tail and many men were killed jumping from the plane because they hit the tail on the way out. The book said the survival rate for Lancaster crews that were shot down was only about 10%. Many missions were flown at low-level and the damaged planes went down before anyone had a chance to get out. You would also have problems landing if you bailed out at night. It helps to see when and where you are landing.

The B-17 is a clearly a sentimental choice for many of us in the US. Even though our own B-24 was a better plane in terms of bombloads. The comments about B-17s being better armored than other planes is curious. I have walked through several B-17s and never saw anything that resembled armor. I saw thin aluminum skin riveted to ribs (steel or aluminum???). There would be no real protection in a B-17 except for maybe the ball turret gunner. He was squished into a cast aluminum ball that would probably deflect anything but a direct hit.

Don't forget, part of the plan of the Allies was to attack Germany day and night to make the Germans expend huge resources to defend itself against air attacks. In that sense, the bomber commands achieved one of their objectives 100%, regardless of what the bombs actually hit. Germany would have much preferred to devote its resources to building tanks, trucks and equipment for its ground forces and navy than to build huge numbers of interceptors, AAA guns and a complete anti-air defense network. The Allies had the resources to wage war on the land, sea and air, the Germans struggled to do so.

Zeus-cat

Stickmonkey1
09-29-2004, 11:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I don't think I can make this choice. Neither sounds all that great to me.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Zeus Cat really hits the nail on the head there.

But I must say, from what I read the maneouverability of the Lanc would sell it for me - being able to corkscrew around and the feeling that as the pilot you have more freedom to handle the aircraft would be comforting. However the presence of Night Fighters certainly wouldn't be!

Sm

92SqnGCJimbo
09-29-2004, 01:30 PM
er the lanc is a
The Lanc (a very pretty airplane) was much more specialized in purpose

i dont think so... . it could do almost anything and be altered god knows how many ways.. .
and as for the lanc u said coming out with .50 and 20mm cannon.. some .50 armed lancs did see service. however i thin yer describing the lincoln.. the lancs bigger brother
the family tree of the avro lanc
manchester
|
lancaster
| \
| york
lincoln
|
shackleton

good luck

hop2002
09-29-2004, 02:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Or after 25 missions chance or surviving is 28% at 5% loss rate, 12% at 8% loss rate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The low point for bomber command was in 1943 when only about 15% of crewmen survived 30 missions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The RAF didn't have the concept of a tour - you flew until for some reason you weren't flying night bombers any more - wounded, transferred, cracked under the pressure, or died, pretty much. You had a chance of being rotated out for R&R, though, at least. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The RAF introduced tours for bomber command in 1941. The first tour was 30 missions, followed by a period as an instructor, followed by another tour of 20 missions.

Every crewman was a volunteer, and every one could ask to be taken off operations at any time. In other words, they effectively volunteered each flight.

In total, 60% died, 24% survivied unharmed, the rest were either injured or captured.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>However the B17G could carry (for a range of around 400 miles) just over 20,000 lbs, with the wing racks carrying a 4000lb cookie each. It was very ungainly loaded that much, though with 12,800lb carried internally (max internal load). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have indication if that sort of load was ever carried by the B-17? In all the cases where load is mentioned that I've seen, even on very short range missions to the French coast, the load never goes much above 6,000 lbs, if at all.

I think the problem lay in the bomb bay, whioh was rather small and could only carry a limited number of bombs. iirc, the maximum internal bomb load could be achieved using the 1,600 lbs ap bomb, and none of those were used in Europe after 1943 (and only small numbers before that)

Typical load was 4 1,000 lbs, or up to 10 500 lbs, but not usually higher than that. I'm not aware of external bombs being carried by the B-17 on operations, apart from the 4,500 lbs Disney bomb, but only around 150 of those were used in total, all in 1945.

Rebel_Yell_21
09-29-2004, 02:53 PM
Both great aircraft and I would love to fly either, but some popular propaganda in this thread that needs a little exorcising.

The Lanc absolutely had a bigger bomb bay than the Fort, but the typical load carried was not wildly different. While it was capable of carrying 14x1000lb, unless it was a shorter range mission, 14x500lb, or a mixed load was much more common. Forts get stuck with the 4000 or 4800 figure all the time, which only refers to carrying 2x2000lb for early sub pen raids, or 48x100lb incendiaries. Forts regularly carried 6x1000lb or 12x500lb to targets as far away as Berlin.

The Lanc had a max gross weight of roughly 7000lb less than the Fort, due to defensive armament, etc. The Lanc also flew some 7-10,000 feet lower, and without spending 1 to 2 hours forming up, thus using faaaaar less fuel, and enabling the heavier load to be carried.

As far as armor, you could stick a screwdriver through the skin of the Fort, or any other WWII aircraft, but it had a very well designed internal structure that allowed it to maintain integrity through tremendous amounts of damage.

As far as maneuverability goes, the Fort was just as agile as the Lanc. The corkscrew could be performed by an experienced pilot in just about any Allied 4 engine bomber.

Bomber Command crew had a poorer chance of survival than 8th Air Force crewman did. Despite the early problems with daylight bombing, night bombing was ultimately more dangerous, throughout the war.

Can't let the 17 v 24 comment go either. The Lib carrying more bombs than the Fort was rooted in the early comparison of the 24D v the 17E. The only thing the 24J could do that the 17G could not, was carry 4x2000lb internally (which was basically never done in combat). The Fort would have had to carry 2 externally. The 2 aircraft carried the exact same loads to the same targets. And, of course, with the external racks the 17 had a much higher lifting capacity than the 24.

There are a bunch of reasons why the all Fort 1st Division of the 8th Air Force always, and I mean always, received the most heavily defended target throughout the war in Europe and maintained the bombing accuracy lead in every month of the war but one, while the all Lib 3rd Division so often carried out diversionary attacks on less well defended areas. Eaker, Spaatz, Doolittle, et al, all knew the same thing. The Fort gave the crews the best chance to hit the target and come home. It flew 5-7000 feet higher than the Lib, was a more stable bombing platform, and had a higher survival rate for the crew. The Lib was sent to the Pacific not because it had a slightly longer range, but because the air war there was much less contested by early 43 and every Fort was needed in Europe. I don't recall which one for sure, but I believe it was Spaatz that said, after the war, the 24 should never have been built. 24's averaged $280,000 per unit, while Forts were $230,000, but in 42/43 when things were spooling up, every unit that could be produced was needed, and by the time they realized the Fort was a better weapon, the Consolidated group of producers had enough political clout to keep the Lib in production instead of spending money to convert the lines over to the less profitable Fort.

Ok /rant off. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

hop2002
09-29-2004, 03:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Lanc absolutely had a bigger bomb bay than the Fort, but the typical load carried was not wildly different. While it was capable of carrying 14x1000lb, unless it was a shorter range mission, 14x500lb, or a mixed load was much more common. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

14 500 lbs would be a very light, and very odd, load for a Lancaster. Typical bombs carried by Lancs were 4,000 lbs, or 1,000 lbs, usually mixed with incendiaries.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Forts get stuck with the 4000 or 4800 figure all the time, which only refers to carrying 2x2000lb for early sub pen raids, or 48x100lb incendiaries. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, that also refers to 4 1,000 lbs, or 8 500 lbs, which were very common loads for the B-17.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Forts regularly carried 6x1000lb or 12x500lb to targets as far away as Berlin. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Teypical load for a B-17 to Berlin was 4,000 lbs, either as 4 1000lbs or 8 500 lbs. Some groups went for 10 500 lbs.

Typical for a Lancaster to Berlin was 8 - 9000lbs.

The Lanc usually carried about 2 - 2.5 times the bomb load of the B-17. On a typical mission where the B-17 went as high as 6,000 lbs, the Lanc would go to 14,000. When the B-17 went as low as 4,000 lbs, the Lanc would go as low as 8,000 lbs.

Monty_Thrud
09-29-2004, 03:32 PM
But the Lancaster was a better dogfighter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Korolov
09-29-2004, 04:00 PM
B-17, purely on the basis of its lines. It has a more smooth, aerodynamic appearance compared to the Lancaster, whether or not that is true. Can argue bomb loads and that sort of stuff all you want, on the basis of looks, IMO, the B-17 rises above the pack.

p1ngu666
09-29-2004, 04:06 PM
im pretty certain the loss rate of 8th was pretty bad, worse than RAF. RAF simply couldnt sustain the loss rate of the americans, simply its populace, and what that enables u todo.

lanc rear gunner would turn the turret around and jump out, no back to it. wasnt that popular.
rear gunner has 4x 303, full tracer (makes it look like 20mm at night)
lanc could carry more varied loads aswell, but iirec the huge bomb bay made a belly gunner impractical.

lanc carried more bombs, of varied types, futher?. and the odd ball loads where very important, and stemmed mostly from 1 guy, barns wallace http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
dam busters, tall boy and grandslam all came from him http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

personaly, id like to fly a mossie http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

hop2002
09-29-2004, 05:20 PM
Early Lancs did have a belly turret, it was soon replaced by the H2S radar scanner. 1 group of bomber command retained the belly turret as well, though.

DaBalllz
09-29-2004, 05:57 PM
B-17 vs Lanc.

Tough choice.

Bomber command took terrible casualties.
The chances of surviving Bomber Command
unscathed (killed, captures or crippled)
was only 19% if you started in Bomber Command
in 1940. The 8th AF was marginally better
but on a "per mission" basis was as bad.

You people do know that most US combat deaths
were in aircraft, right?

I do not have the figures at my finger tips
but it was by over 2:1.

But as a fun plane to fly, purely for
sporting purposes I would choose the B-17.

Reasons?

Great power to weight for a piston bomber,
much better than a Lanc.
VERY Low wing loading.
Although marginally faster than a Lanc, the
B-17 is slower at low altitude.
Time to climb for a B-17 with no bombs and minimum fuel
was supposedly awesome. I met a B-17 driver at an airshow
who was flying a stripped B-17G with no turrets.
He said it would climb with any piston fighter except a Bearcat! (the B-17 in question was a former fire bomber).

Even fully loaded the power to weight was good.
55,000 lbs and 4,800 hp (all 4 engines).

That's 11.45 lbs per HP.
A fully loaded P-51D was around 7.5 LB per HP.

An empty B-17G weighed 32,000lbs.
Stripped of all millitary hardware
was under 28,000 lbs empty.


inital climb for a fully loaded B-17G (55,000lbs)
was 900 fpm.


Da...

Sarpedon688
09-29-2004, 06:04 PM
Wow RAF Bomber command & the 8th AF had higher % loss rates than the Kamikaze Corps.

If this wasn't so tragic It'd be funny..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Zyzbot
09-29-2004, 06:16 PM
I FOUND THESE FIGURES FOR LOSS RATES:


Tour Of Duty % KIA or MIA
Fighters (300 combat hours) 24%
Medium bombers (50 missions 48%
Heavy bombers (30 missions) 71%

Mashie_Nibblick
09-29-2004, 06:23 PM
How about the Handley-Page Halifax? No, not a choice? I'll have to go with the Lanc, then.

Stickmonkey1
09-29-2004, 06:50 PM
"I'd like to fly a mossie"

Ain't it the truth pingu. Thank heavens we are (hopefully) soon to be able to fly it! At least I think we are... It's not a torpedo bomber is it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Mashie (and being from north of the border I appreciate the name) I always looked at the halifax in the same way some have compared the Lib to the Fort - an important second place. I'm afraid I don't know much about it, other than the later versions were the most successful. Anyone care to enlighten us?

Sm

jensenpark
09-29-2004, 07:04 PM
Gotta go with the Lanc...

For the simple reason it did the incredible dambuster raid...

Far more versatile...ugly, but a sexy beast none the less.

PS: Mashie - Halifax would be a great choice as well!

SkyChimp
09-29-2004, 07:58 PM
With the developement of the B-29, by 1944 the B-17 had been redesignated a medium bomber.

While 4,000 bomb loads were typical, higher loads were not all that uncommon. Loads of 12 500lb bombs were carried on occassion. In fact, one of these laden B-17s exploded at Alconbury on 27 May 1943 before embarking on a mission.

Additionally, external bomb loads were carried on occassion.

Most common was 1,000lb GP bombs, one slung under each wing. This was a relatively common load in 1943 against targets in France.

On one occassion in April 1944, externally mounted GB-1 glide bombs were used against Cologne by the 384th BG. These proved inaccurate and were not used operationally again. The GB-1 was a 2000lb GP bomb with 12 foot wings. Two were carried, one under each wing.

The GB-4 television guided bomb was also used operationally in 1944. This too was a 2000lb GP bomb with a TV camera in the nose and wings with radio controlled flight surfaces. It weighed 2600lbs with wings and camera. As with the GB-1, two were carried, one under each wing.

As Hop said, Disney bombs were carried and used by B-17s as well, starting in March 1945. These weight 4500lbs each, and the B-17 carried two of them. Only the B-17 was suitable for carrying these.

The real advantage of the B-17 lay in the fact that it was incredibly stable in flight, even at high altitude, which allowed the planes to fly in much closer formation than the Lancaster or Liberator. In addition, it was extremely tough. It was very reliable. It was seems simply the best choice for the mission that had to be flown.

MarkGos
09-29-2004, 11:18 PM
As the son of a 36 mission Lanc vet I've got to say I'd take the Lanc. I do like the fort and always have. The guts of that generation to fly either into the teeth of hell says alot about that generation.

Whilst everyone can mouth off about the various merits of each aircraft, the techncial spec's and who carried more further and higher. At the end of the day the men(boys?) who manned these things were what made a difference. As someone said previously all the BomberCommand types were volunteers. Whilst 8AF flew 25 missions and BomberCommand did two tours totalling 50 missions, effectively anyone who signed up could not expect to survive.

My father flew from 1942 till the end of hostilities. He saw many of his friends go missing and saw first hand the horrors of 'total war'. I have the utmost respect for what he and his generation did. I really doubt that todays generation has the stomach for putting the needs of the generation before their own. It's always alot easier to tear something down than to stand up for your principles.

On a selfish note the Lanc has to win. If it wasn't for the Lanc my Dad could have been in a Halifax or god forbid a Stirling (ouch!!). He doesn't survive so no me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

woofiedog
09-30-2004, 01:41 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gifB-17 All the Way!
http://www.aviation-history.com/boeing/veterans.jpg

DaBalllz
09-30-2004, 03:18 AM
Might I add to the list of advantages the B-17
looks like a snazzy "art decco" air liner...

That's no accident, the B-17 was a streched 4 engined
version of the Boeing 247.

By the way, as to the Kamakazi remarks...
On the basis of planes lost to ships sunk
Kamakazis were quite efficent. Fortunately
the Japanese used poor tactics for the Kamakazis
or they would have been a much greater success.

Da...

Aaron_GT
09-30-2004, 04:14 AM
DaBallz wrote:
"Great power to weight for a piston bomber,
much better than a Lanc.
VERY Low wing loading.
Although marginally faster than a Lanc, the
B-17 is slower at low altitude.
Time to climb for a B-17 with no bombs and minimum fuel
was supposedly awesome. I met a B-17 driver at an airshow
who was flying a stripped B-17G with no turrets.
He said it would climb with any piston fighter except a Bearcat! (the B-17 in question was a former fire bomber).

Even fully loaded the power to weight was good.
55,000 lbs and 4,800 hp (all 4 engines).

That's 11.45 lbs per HP.
A fully loaded P-51D was around 7.5 LB per HP.

An empty B-17G weighed 32,000lbs.
Stripped of all millitary hardware
was under 28,000 lbs empty."

The B17G was not that light unloaded. I don't have Martin Caidin's book in my hand, but the B17G was a LOT heavier than that unloaded.

Also the overload weight of the B17G (maximum bombload and fuel) was a staggering 72,000lbs.

It took the B17G about one hour to get to the typical transit altitude of 25,000ft.

The B17G was a damn good plane, and much better looking than the Lancaster in my opinion.

Aaron_GT
09-30-2004, 04:19 AM
"As far as armor, you could stick a screwdriver through the skin of the Fort, or any other WWII aircraft, but it had a very well designed internal structure that allowed it to maintain integrity through tremendous amounts of damage."

The Wellington must surely take the prize for this, however.

"Bomber Command crew had a poorer chance of survival than 8th Air Force crewman did. Despite the early problems with daylight bombing, night bombing was ultimately more dangerous, throughout the war."

Percentage loss rates were pretty much the same, day or night.

Aaron_GT
09-30-2004, 04:22 AM
"Do you have indication if that sort of load was ever carried by the B-17? In all the cases where load is mentioned that I've seen, even on very short range missions to the French coast, the load never goes much above 6,000 lbs, if at all."

Only on short range flights and very very rarely as the B17 could only barely take off like this due to the stress of 2x4000 on the wings. My point was that people dismiss the B17 in terms of bomb load. It was capable of lifting a large tonnage of bombs into the air, in theory, but only for short range missions, and as you correctly point out, the design of the bomb bay meant that very large bombs could not be carried internally (much like, say, the Stirling, He-111, etc)

hop2002
09-30-2004, 06:23 AM
There's a list of bomb types and numbers dropped by the USAAF on Europe at http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t138.pdf

There's no sign of 4,000lb bombs there, which is why I query if they were used operationally.

The only bombs over 2000 lbs are the 4500 lb Disney bombs, of which 158 were dropped.

(And my mistake in my previous post, the 1,600 lbs bombs were dropped in 1944, although again in small numbers)

The Lancaster, on normal missions, carried a much larger load than the B-17. That's why the Lancaster, with less sorties in Europe, dropped a higher tonnage in Europe, than the B-17.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As Hop said, Disney bombs were carried and used by B-17s as well, starting in March 1945. These weight 4500lbs each, and the B-17 carried two of them. Only the B-17 was suitable for carrying these. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Disney bomb was designed for deep penetration against bunkers. The RAF used the rather more effective 12,000 lbs tallboy.

Aaron_GT
09-30-2004, 02:19 PM
In Martin Caidin's book he says that a cookie under each wing was tried, at least

"Early Lancs did have a belly turret, it was soon replaced by the H2S radar scanner. 1 group of bomber command retained the belly turret as well, though."

Some enterprising Australians cut a hatch in the belly for a flexible 20mm cannon, but it was strictly non standard.

Most RAF bombers (Stirling, Wellington, Halifax, Lancaster) were originally designed with ventral turrets.

DaBalllz
09-30-2004, 05:24 PM
Aaron_GT...
I NEVER use any data from Martin Caidin's books
as it is 99% inaccurate and hyperbole.

The USAF site is the source for data involving
the take off weight for a B-17.
Also the empty weight.
Other sources such as "Dave's warbirds" Joe Baugher, and a host
of others back up my data. Jane's also states
the same numbers.

Yes, 32,000lbs empty and well under 28,000 lbs
stripped of turrets, guns, and armour.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap16.htm

The Armour of a B-17 was primarily some 1/4 in steel
plate under the crew seats. It was really useful
for flack hits from below only.

Martin Caidin (I have read all his books) is a good
read, an emotional writer but a piss poor historian.

His books should be described as "history novels".

The strengths of the B-17 over other bombers
were few, but significant.

Low wing loading.
Complex but tough "warren truss" wing.
Excessivly strong structure.
Thicker than needed wing and fuselage skin.
Single row 9 cylinder Wright GR-1820-97 radial engines.
(reliable, and rarely over heated)
Good power to weight ratio for a bomber.
Very good high altitude performance.
Very high bomb load at short ranges if needed.
As Chimpster noted, excellent stability at all altitudes.

There were a few notable disadvantages.

Obsolete airfoil and wing shape.
Excessive drag of engine instalation design.
No flush riviting and resulting high drag.
Low wing loading and the low wing design
made for a tendency to "baloon" on landing.
(caused by the wing getting into surface effect
and refusing to stall when desired!)
Low cruise speed (around 220mph at 28,000')

Like the Bf-109 the B-17 was obsolete bt 1944.
Like the Bf-109 the B-17 was available in huge numbers
and despite the obsolesence it was still an effective weapon.

Da...

EmKen
09-30-2004, 05:46 PM
A couple of maybe interesting asides, the RAF used early B-17s as high altitude bombers with disastrous results. This directly led to the introduction of the trademark huge vertical empennage and power operated turrets.
As for RAF bombers with ventral armament, the Royal Canadian Air Force, which flew as No. 8 Group of the RAF and was equipped with Halifaxes fitted .50 calibre guns in the rear of the H2S radome. I believe that this resulted in a lower than average loss rate from "Shrage Musik" attacks.

EmKen

SkyChimp
09-30-2004, 06:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:

There's no sign of 4,000lb bombs there, which is why I query if they were used operationally.

The only bombs over 2000 lbs are the 4500 lb Disney bombs, of which 158 were dropped.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roger Freeman, who probably knows more about the 8th AF than any living person today, specifically states in his book The Mighty 8th War Manual that 4,000lb bombs WERE NOT used operationally. Neither the B-17 nor the B-24 could carry them internally.

SkyChimp
09-30-2004, 06:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
The Disney bomb was designed for deep penetration against bunkers. The RAF used the rather more effective 12,000 lbs tallboy.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Disney Bomb was a British weapon, too. But they had no planes that could carry it. Only the B-17, AFAIK, could.

p1ngu666
09-30-2004, 07:50 PM
http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=61

hmm
wonder why they didnt remove the bomb doors on the lanc, and lash something up

http://www.ww2guide.com/bombs.shtml

good page also http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

pourshot
09-30-2004, 11:17 PM
Let me see a B17 lift this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/bombscompared2.jpg

I reckon this bad boy would make your ears ring http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

FI.Snaphoo
10-01-2004, 12:03 AM
I reckon that bad boy would make rings of your ears. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


All in all, I'd have to choose the B-17, for purely sentimental reasons. My grandfather's B-17 kept him, and his mates, alive for as long as he was on it (he's never told me how long that was). Probably not a logical, or perhaps good, reason. But it's mine, and that's all I have.

Aaron_GT
10-01-2004, 04:17 AM
"This directly led to the introduction of the trademark huge vertical empennage and power operated turrets. "

No, the B17E was already planned, including deliveries to the RAF. The Fortress I (B17C) was supplied to the RAF is small numbers purely as a training aircraft in preparation for deliveries of the E on the understanding that it would NOT be used in combat as its defensive armament was considered by the USAAF to be inadequate.

Daballz:
Every other reference I have seen to the empty weight of the B17G (i.e. turrets and armour present) is around 36,000 lbs, which matches what Caidin says, and is 4,000lbs above what you suggest. Maybe everyone else after Caidin (early 1970s?) has simply used his figures, although most quote a more detailed value than Caidin so it seems unlikely.

The link you posted doesn't list empty weights.

I'd agree with you that Caidin is an emotional writer.

Arms1
10-01-2004, 04:36 AM
my sweet tooth has always been partial to the 4000lb cookie, here's an interesting link
http://www.ww2guide.com/bombs.shtml

oops pingus already posted it

Arms1
10-01-2004, 04:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
The Disney bomb was designed for deep penetration against bunkers. The RAF used the rather more effective 12,000 lbs tallboy.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Disney Bomb was a British weapon, too. But they had no planes that could carry it. Only the B-17, AFAIK, could. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

or a rather more impressive 22,000lb bomb

woofiedog
10-01-2004, 06:30 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gifYou can have all the Mega Bombs you want... But these are what I'd like to see added to the Game.
When we get a Flyable B-25 or A-20 these little Buggers will Rule!
ParaFrag's
http://www.ww2guide.com/parafrags.jpg

xrvjorn
10-01-2004, 07:13 AM
The Lanc, including the dambuster mod!

OTOH, it would be nice to actually see what you're bombing and to be able to return fire against something that looks like e g an Me-109 rather than to just shoot in the direction of some muzzle flashes that seem hostile.

Seems we need both of 'em. Please...

Huckebein_UK
10-01-2004, 07:37 AM
I thought RAF Lancasters used Disney Bombs once in one of the raids against the Tirpitz? They were woefully innaccurate so they stuck to Tallboys and the odd Grand Slam...

EDIT: I'd prefer to fly the Lanc in game, but the Fort is still a 'must have'. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

hop2002
10-01-2004, 09:00 AM
I'd be very suprised if a Lanc couldn't carry a Disney bomb internally. The Tallboy was considerably bigger, and heavier, and only required slightly bulged bomb bay doors.

The bomb bay was immense, 30 ft long and unobstructed, being designed initially to be able to carry 2 torpedoes.

WOLFMondo
10-01-2004, 10:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=61

hmm
wonder why they didnt remove the bomb doors on the lanc, and lash something up

http://www.ww2guide.com/bombs.shtml

good page also http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They managed to fit a 22,000lbs 21 ft long Grandslam to a Lanc though....

Flatlander1961
10-01-2004, 12:15 PM
Hi, new here. Quick question. Is the origonal IL2 required to run FB/AEP? I want to get back into the WW2 sims and this seems to be the best around. How are the missions for escorting the 17's??
My former next door neighbor just moved this week to Florida, he was the bombadier on the "Devastating Lady" 384th BG 546th squadron out of Grafton-Underwood station 106. He flew in the last 33 missions for the 8th airforce (he has some good stories).
After he gets his computer back up I'll email him and see what he says for his max bomb loads
he used to drop he told me once before but I cant remeber all the details.
Has anyone ever heard of some 17's being converted to pure gun ships?? He (my neighbor the bombadier)told me one time that they used to add some 20mm cannons and a couple extra turrets to some (no bomb load on these)and let them fly back in formation to attract the germans and give them a little suprise.

Out for now thanks in advance

p1ngu666
10-01-2004, 12:31 PM
no, u dont need il2 to run fb+aces http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

yeah gunship b17 and 24, but i dunno much about em, apart from they where slower so hard to stay in formation

Flatlander1961
10-01-2004, 01:25 PM
So if I just but FB with the AEP is that good for most everything going on with this sim now. Or would I need the origonal IL2 for something not obvious?? And the 17 gun ships flew in the back on pupose to attrack the unsuspecting germans All they carried was 50 cal and 20 mm so I dont think weight was an issue.

woofiedog
10-01-2004, 01:34 PM
Here is some info on the YB-40.
The YB-40 was the bomber escort variant of the Flying Fortress, where the Y stood for "service test". This aircraft was produced in an attempt to provide better defenses for B-17 daylight bomber forces which were suffering appalling losses in their raids against German targets on the European continent. The YB-40 was produced by converting existing B-17Fs in an attempt to provide additional firepower for the defense of bomber formations when they ventured into areas beyond the range of contemporary fighters.

The first XB-40 prototype was produced in November of 1942 by the Vega division of Lockheed. They converted a standard Boeing-built B-17F (serial number 41-24341) to escort configuration by adding a dorsal turret in the radio compartment position carring a pair of 0.50-cal machine guns, a chin turret underneath the nose equipped with a pair of 0.50 cal machine guns, and twin gun mounts instead of the usual single gun mounts at each waist position. The regular top, belly, and tail turrets were retained, bringing total defensive armament to fourteen 0.50-inch machine guns. Additional protective armor was fitted for better crew protection. The bomb bays were replaced by storage areas which carried additional ammunition for the guns. The normal ammunition load was 11,135 rounds, which could be increased to 17,265 rounds if the fuel load was reduced.

Twenty more Vega-built B-17Fs were converted to YB-40 configuration, plus four TB-40 trainers. Although they bore the Vega model number of V-139-3, they were actually modified by Douglas at Tulsa, Oklahoma from Vega-built B-17F airframes. A variety of different armament configurations was tried. Some YB-40s were fitted with four-gun nose and tail turrets. Some carried cannon of up to 40-mm in calibre, and a few carried up to as many as 30 guns of various calibres in multiple hand-held positions in the waist as well as in additional power turrets above and below the fuselage! Oddly enough, there don't seem to have been any photographs ever published of these 30-gun YB-40s (insofar as I am aware), although I have seen some drawings.

The first operational YB-40 sortie took place on May 29, 1943 against St. Nazaire. Eight other missions were later flown, the last one taking place on July 4, 1943. Five kills and two probables were claimed during these missions, with the loss of one YB-40. Very early on, it was found that the net effect of the additional drag of the turrets and the extra weight of the guns, armor, and additional ammunition was to reduce the speed of the YB-40 to a point where it could not maintain formation with the standard B-17s on the way home from the target once they had released their bombs. The YB-40 could protect itself fairly well, but not the bombers it was supposed to defend. Consequently, it was recognized that the YB-40 project was an operational failure, and the surviving YB-40s were converted back to standard B-17F configuration or used as gunnery trainers back in the States. However, the YB-40 was to have one lasting impact--the chin turret originally introduced on the YB-40 was later adopted as standard for the B-17G series.

XB-40: Conversion of B-17F-1-BO 41-24342
YB-40: Conversions of B-17F-10-VE 42-5732/5744, B-17F-30-VE 42-5871, and B-17F-35-VEs 42-5920, 5921, 5923, 5924, 5925, and 5927.

TB-40: Conversions of B-17F-25-VEs 42-5833 and 5834, B-17F-30-VE 42-5872, and B-17F-35-VE 42-5926.

woofiedog
10-01-2004, 01:41 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gifTo Flatlander1961... here is a RAF model that was made for Coastal Command.

In mid-1942, 45 B-17Es were turned over to the RAF as Fortress IIA. RAF serials were FK 184/213, FG 449/460, and FG 462/464. Since this transfer took place following the transfer of a batch of later model B-17Fs to the RAF as Fortress II, these planes were designated Fortress IIA.

Because of its unhappy experience with the Fortress I, the RAF did not attempt to use their Fortress IIAs in the daylight high-altitude bombing role. Instead, they were turned over to Coastal Command for use in antisubmarine patrol work in the war in the Atlantic. The Fortress IIA entered service with No. 59 Squadron based at Thorney Island in August of 1942.

One Coastal Command Fortress IIA (FK 185) was fitted with an experimental Bristol B.16 nose turret in place of the normal transparent fairing. This turret housed a 40-mm Vickers "S" gun which was remotely-controlled from a position just underneath the turret. The gun had a traverse of 30 degrees in azimuth and 40 degrees in elevation. It was intended for use against surfaced submarines.

A few Fortress IIAs were issued to RAF Bomber Command, although I am unaware of their service history.

woofiedog
10-01-2004, 02:45 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gifFlatlander1961... wieght was the issue. With the extra guns and ammo the VB-40 was a Lead Sled.
It couldn't keep up with the other B-17's in the flight.
That was the Big reason that made them almost useless... because the other aircraft in the Group had to slow down so the YB-40's could keep up. Thaat and even with all those gun's they didn't score that much different from other B-17's.

p1ngu666
10-01-2004, 03:09 PM
and drag too?
fb+aces is all u need m8 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
till pf comes out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Flatlander1961
10-01-2004, 03:17 PM
Cool thanks, I hope all the skins and mission addons are to much of a hassle to import

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
10-01-2004, 04:07 PM
Very informative and civil read guys I am impressed. Thanks. Lets hope one day soon we can have em both http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

SkyChimp
10-01-2004, 05:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
I'd be very suprised if a Lanc couldn't carry a Disney bomb internally. The Tallboy was considerably bigger, and heavier, and only required slightly bulged bomb bay doors.

The bomb bay was immense, 30 ft long and unobstructed, being designed initially to be able to carry 2 torpedoes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought they had to remove the doors:

http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/pictures/jpg/avro%20683%20lancaster.jpg

p1ngu666
10-01-2004, 06:21 PM
hm, that could be grand slam, or maybe the bulged doors came later?

iirec it was a bit of a rush job, but not asmuch as the bouncing bomb

SkyChimp
10-01-2004, 06:31 PM
Could be the Grand Slam. Frankly, I don't know much about either.

hop2002
10-01-2004, 06:52 PM
That could be a Grand Slam (22,000 lbs), or it could be a Tallboy being carried by a Lanc modified to carry the Grand Slam.

The Grand Slam required the doors to be removed. The modified aircraft were all from 617 squadron, iirc, and they would have remained in that condition, as 617 were used for all the Grand Slam attacks, and most of the Tallboys.

Here's a Tallboy, you can see the bulged doors:

http://www.lancastermuseum.ca/photos/p_tallboy5.jpg

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
10-01-2004, 06:53 PM
That looks like the armour piercing Tall boy to me but I could be wrong

SkyChimp
10-01-2004, 06:54 PM
Did some more Googling, and I think that is the Grand Slam. That's a helluva helluva.

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
10-01-2004, 07:12 PM
Yeah I agree just checked it on the web it most likely is given its size compared to airframe nice pic bloody scary bomb http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif saw that those babies were travelling in excess of the speed of sound by the time they impacted on targets too. Mostly used against turpitz and sub pens if memory serves Tallboy was armour piercing and gram slam was concrete piercing (early bunker buster) .

hop2002
10-01-2004, 07:32 PM
Just to clarify what I posted earlier.

617 squadron dropped all the Grand Slams, afaik.

The Tallboy got into service some time before the Grand Slam.

The Tallboy required bulged bomb bay doors, which were fitted to those aircraft tasked with dropping Tallboys, 617 and 9 squadrons.

Later on, when the Grandslam came into service, the bomb bay doors were removed altogether. 617 squadron dropped Grand Slams, I don't know whether 9 squadron did as well.

So 617 squadron, and possibly 9 squadron, would have been carrying Tallboys without their bomb bay doors late in the war, because their Lancs had been modified to carry Grand Slams.

To anyone who still doubts the greater average capacity of the Lancaster, the B-17 is credited with 291,508 sorties in Europe, dropping 640,036 (short) tons (1,280,072,000 lbs), 4391 lbs per sortie.

The Lancaster flew 156,308 sorties in Europe, dropping 604,612 (long) tons (1,354,330,880 lbs, 8,665 lbs per sortie (and the RAF used Lancs as pathfinders and on bomber support electronic sorties, where the tonnage was small or non existant)

SkyChimp
10-01-2004, 08:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:

To anyone who still doubts the greater average capacity of the Lancaster, the B-17 is credited with 291,508 sorties in Europe, dropping 640,036 (short) tons (1,280,072,000 lbs), 4391 lbs per sortie.

The Lancaster flew 156,308 sorties in Europe, dropping 604,612 (long) tons (1,354,330,880 lbs, 8,665 lbs per sortie (and the RAF used Lancs as pathfinders and on bomber support electronic sorties, where the tonnage was small or non existant)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's no question the Lancaster could carry more than the B-17, and did on a regular basis. But even 8,665lbs was well within the capabilities of the B-17. The B-17G could carry a max bombload of 13,600lbs.

All came down to compromises for range and altitude performance.

p1ngu666
10-02-2004, 03:26 AM
617 was teh special ops squad, they got all the toys http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
they had special bombsites, dead acurate, but u gotta stay stable for a long time..

another squad joined em later using norden iirec bomb sites.

and a miss is better than a hit with tallboy/grandslam, for some bulidings, shake it to bits like a large earthquake

DaBalllz
10-03-2004, 08:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:

To anyone who still doubts the greater average capacity of the Lancaster, the B-17 is credited with 291,508 sorties in Europe, dropping 640,036 (short) tons (1,280,072,000 lbs), 4391 lbs per sortie.

The Lancaster flew 156,308 sorties in Europe, dropping 604,612 (long) tons (1,354,330,880 lbs, 8,665 lbs per sortie (and the RAF used Lancs as pathfinders and on bomber support electronic sorties, where the tonnage was small or non existant)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's no question the Lancaster could carry more than the B-17, and did on a regular basis. But even 8,665lbs was well within the capabilities of the B-17. The B-17G could carry a max bombload of 13,600lbs.

All came down to compromises for range and altitude performance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Very true Chimpster.
There is a lot of bad information
flying aroung. Much of it due to
poor history novels (propaganda)
and very bad research.

Truth is bomb load was compramised for
range.
The B-17 was designed as a HEAVY bomber
and had a huge bomb load.

In fact the Lanc and the B-17 had a nearly
identical bomb load.
17,600 for a B-17G
18,000 lbs for a Lanc.

Martin Caidin started a BS streak by claiming
an over load capacity of 20,000+ for the B-17.
In over 30 years I have found NO data to back that up.

Truth is that a modded Lanc can carry over that
figure, 22,000 lbs max.

The USAF Museum posts the typical bomb load and
gross weight for a Berlin mission...55,000 lbs gross
and 6,000 lbs bombs.

Ok, why did the B-17 never carry 17,600 lbs
of bombs or reach it's max over gross of 66,000 lbs?
Simple, very simple. You would still be
climbing to altitude when the planes crossed
the German border.
No BS here, it took a 55,000 lb gross B-17
over 30 minutes to reach cruise altitudes.
Try that with another 16,000lbs.
Do the math. German fighters and flack could
have had a field day.

the Lanc's flew at night at random altitudes
and with no formations.
Under the same conditions the B-17 could have
carried a lot more weight than on a high
altitude Berlin mission.

Yes, the Lanc could carry more weight.
But the mission requirements were
more of an influence and the deciding factor.

Da...

Stickmonkey1
10-03-2004, 04:13 PM
Actually Ballz, although the Lancs didn't necessarily need to fly at a certain alt. the bomber stream would be flown at quite a precise height. In briefings crews were instructed on bombing height and time. Afterward it was any man for himself and many pilots started a dive just after "bombs away" to get some speed up to make like bananas.

So the stream itself probably had a smiliar vertical extent to a stacked series of fortress formations. The only difference was the altitudes were usually lower (~19,000' give or take).

I understand forts flew up to 30,000'? Would this only have been if lightly loaded? Anyone have any 'standard' mission profile for a fort raid?

Sm

Secudus2004
10-03-2004, 05:02 PM
One thing that has not been mentioned, Avro's were building their A/C as a bomber for the european theatre only, (See P13/36 REQUIRERMENTS)it's close coweled ex-Beaufighter Merlin engine would be unable to cope with hot tropical conditions... A problem the B-17 did not have to contend with.

As for which I would like to fly...Nither, the only four engined bomber I would like to fly would be the Halifax fitted with the Hercules engines...Superb.

p1ngu666
10-03-2004, 05:47 PM
halifax faster? just curious http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

92SqnGCJimbo
10-03-2004, 06:04 PM
whatabout the lanc bm mkII with bristol hercs?????... used in case thier was a shortage of merlins.. and as for lancs not bein able to fly in the far east.. look here...
http://tools.search.eur.yahoo.net/search/cache?fr=ieas&y=y&ei=UTF-8&eo=UTF-8&p=wwII+tiger+force&u=www.hellzapoppin.demon.co.uk/orderofbattle.htm&w=wwii+tiger+force&d=8DD8AF0B70&icp=1&intl=uk

the only mod they made to the lanc was to add saddle tanks which which ran down the back of the lanc for ferry flights..

also dont forget.. the lanc could outlift the b17 however both planes had a similar wingspan (wing size) this would have meant that although the lanc could carry more (due to the better bombay) it had to do so at a lower altitude., whereas the b17 could get higher due to the lighter bombload.

as for defensive armament a few lancs did get .50 in thier turrets. this was in 1944 however when bomber command started daylight bombing.

p.s did anyone know that bomber haris is the only uk war criminal from wwII.. ( due to the firestorms that were created with his bombing of german cities)

just a little bito info for ya..

DaBalllz
10-03-2004, 07:14 PM
Harris a war criminal?
Seems a fire is being started here.

A B-17B or later was turbocharged.
This allowed sea level power at any altitude.
Though un pressurised a B-17 was a superb
high a;titude performer.

The chief drawback of the Bristol radial engines
was the lack of two stage supercharging of any
type. This hampered high altitude performance.

A typical Lanc had between 20 and 50% more
power at takeoff than a B-17. They should
have and did carry more weight.

High altitude performance of a Lancaster depended
on which engines were installed. Some had
two stage superchargers, some did not.

All B-17's after the B model were turbocharged.

Da...

Aaron_GT
10-04-2004, 09:17 AM
DaBallz wrote:
"Ok, why did the B-17 never carry 17,600 lbs
of bombs or reach it's max over gross of 66,000 lbs?"

That's not short of Caidin's suggestion of 72,000lbs based on a max 20,800 bomb load with external bomb racks full.

Aaron_GT
10-04-2004, 09:18 AM
"Actually Ballz, although the Lancs didn't necessarily need to fly at a certain alt. the bomber stream would be flown at quite a precise height."

That was to avoid planes bombing each other from different altitudes.

Stickmonkey1
10-04-2004, 03:54 PM
I realise that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DaBalllz
10-04-2004, 04:53 PM
Aaron_GT you make the same mistake of assuming
Martin Caidin's "data" was factual. It was not.
Enjoy martin's books, but beware his sensationalism.
He made up incidents that never happend, he
mixed fact with fiction and glorified a plane
that needed no more glory!

This was not just true for the B-17. He wrote
the same brand of BS about the P-47, or any
plane he fancied.
Martin Cadin never let the truth stand in the way
of a good story.

Air Classics did a good article on him, they
posted a couple of USAAC/USAAF transcripts
against the garbage printed in "The B-17: Flying Forts".
There was an obvious re-writing that skewed
the facts and reduced the passage to mis leading
fiction passed off as history and fact.

There are a few combat accounts in the book
that are totally fabricated. Notably the
fight between the B-40 (B-17 gunship) and the
"captured P-38" supposedly flown by an Italian pilot.

100% fabrication, no fact to back it up.

While I am at it, there is another fabrication
of merit. The B-17 that flew back to England
with 2 engines out, one running away and heavy
battle damage.
It supposedly skipped off the water numerous
times, but miraculasly climbed the beach to
land at an air base.

Bummer, but a complete fabrication based on
missions that were real, but none like that one.

To clarify one point, more than one B-17 returned
with two engines out. More than one landed dead stick
or with one engine running.

I cannot imagine how a B-17 or any plane could remain
airborne even on three engines with one engine
running away.
Too much drag, more Martin Caidin hyperbole.

To sum it up, find another source.

da...