If you had to choose one heavy bomber...

[Wuzak]

If you had to choose only one strategic/heavy bomber for use during WW2, to be used both day and night, which of these would you have?

Avro Lancaster
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
Consolidated B-24 Liberator
Handley Page Halifax


For daytime missions assume short/medium range escorts available until the end of 1943, with long range escorets available thereafter.

Similarly, night time missions to have NF escorts from mid 1943.

[GregP]

Hi,

From that group, I'd choose the B-17 if airframe srength were the factor and also as a loyal US citizen.

If I were choosing from logic, I'd choose the Lancaster.

The Lancaster carried a large bomb load, had good range, and was as fast as required. The B-17 carried almost as much bomb load for a SHORT distance, but not to Berlin. When going to Berlin, the actual B-17 bomb load was usually 4,000 pounds or so. The Lancaster could carry a LOT more for slightly less distance. It also carried the 22,000 pound Grand Slam. (the B-17 could carry almost as much weight, but only for a short distance).

If absolute range were the priority, the B-17. If USEFUL range and bomb load were the factor, then the Avro Lancaster, absolutely. While the Manchester may have been less than wonderful, the Lancaster was exactly wonderful. Well done, UK!

If I could choose ONE WWII bomber above all, it would be the B-29. More bomb load, more range, faster, higher flying, and better armed. No contest.

Still, the Lancaster was the best for the time it was designed, and could hold its own ANYTIME in WWII versus ANY competition, in general, regardless of nationality.

The Halifax was pretty good, too, but was difficult to bail out of with a parachute on, so I would not choose it for that reason ... it killed a LOT of crewmen that otherwise would have survived, if only to be captured.

The Liberator was a good aircraft, but was not individually as good as the Lancaster. Collectively, YES (many more built). Individually, NO.

[gruad]

Greg it was the Lancaster that was a nightmare to get out of.

Statistics show it was about 1/7 to escape from a Lancaster and 2/7 from the Halifax. The famous Freeman Dyson (more famous for Project Orion) book shows it was down to the escape hatch being too small and crew location.

The B17 was a much better proposition with 6/10 crew escaping IIRC,

The big difference was down to the lack of armour on the Lanc cf B17 and the nature of the fight with the Lancaster being picked on individually from close range with heavy cannon.

[Wuzak]

How much a factor in such a decision is the shape of the bomb bay? The Lancaster and Halifax could caryy larger bombs, without getting into the Tallboy and Grand Slam.

I think the biggest bomb a B-17 could carry was 2000lb. Similarly for the B-24.

I think the use during the day makes this a more difficult question. If only used at night I'm sure the Lancaster would win, but during the day it is definitely more vulnerable to the B-17, both in terms of the structure being able to withstand the attack and the defensive armament. It is probably a similar disadvantage for the B-24 and the Halifax.

So, is having the ability to carry twice the load to the target more important than survivability? Bear in mind that some of the bombing would have to be done before escorts become available. Even with escorts bomber losses were heavy until the Luftwaffe was subdued.

[Sid447]

I'd take the lancaster,

and ask for .50 brownings to be fitted instead of the pea-shooter .303's

[Lightning]

Hi Greg,

The Halifax was pretty good, too, but was difficult to bail out of with a parachute on...

It would be a lot harder to bail out of without a parachute on! :D

(Sorry, Greg. I just couldn't resist.)

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi All,

Just some quick thoughts.

For daylight, high altitude, speed, defensive armament, ruggedness, acceptable bomb load--the B-17. The B-24 had these attributes, but it was much easier to shoot down.

For night, heavy bombload--the Lancaster.

With daylight escort, a toss-up between the B-17 and the Lancaster.

Without daylight escort, the B-17.

At night with escort night fighters, I lean toward the Lancaster because of its bombload. It would be an easier target for flak and night fighters than would the B-17, so I think it would all depend on how effective were the defending night fighters vs the escorting night fighters. Good escorts/not-so-good defenders--Lancaster. Not-so-good escorts/good defenders--B-17.

Regards,
Lightning

[Red Admiral]

I doubt the B-17 would be any better at bombing at night than the Lancaster. Most of the gun turrets on it are pretty ineffectively placed against attacks from below and rear.

Would the B-17s actually be able to find their targets without Oboe/Gee/H2S fits? Adding extra equipment eats into the meagre bombload remaining.

The best "heavy" bomber is the Mosquito of course.... A larger four engined version would be nice.

[Kutscha]

Without escort, the B-17 would be just as susceptible to being shot down as the Lancaster. Schweinfurt and Regensburg ring any bells?

[Lightning]

Without escort, the B-17 would be just as susceptible to being shot down as the Lancaster. Schweinfurt and Regensburg ring any bells?

Both daylight raids without fighter escort. Does anyone think the Lancaster would have done better than the B-17 on those two missions? It would have been able to carry more bombs, but with its low speed and relatively inferior defensive fire, it would have suffered even greater losses than were experienced by the Flying Fortress. There is no doubt that a fighter attacking a B-17 in broad daylight faced a much more dangerous adversary than when attacking a Lancaster.

[Mostlyharmless]

All the posters prefer the B-17 to the B-24 but the USAAF ordered 18,000 B-24s to 12,000 B-17s (partly caused by B-17 production ending in 1944 in favour of the B-29). The B-24's wing gave less drag as well as less lift, so the B-24 had much more range. Thus I would have prefered to fly in a B-17 over Germany but the B-24 was more useful over the Atlantic and the Pacific.

The early Halifaxs (Mk I and II) were inferior to Lancasters and the MkI was rather dangerous to fly. However, the MkIII and especially the MkVI caught up with the Lancasters performance. Also the Lancaster's performance was gained by cheating on the specifications. One example was the escape hatch. Another was the engine cooling. This was OK in Northern Europe but insufficient in India. However, the Lancaster inherited the Manchester's dive bombing capacity (like the He-177) and Lancasters bombing in a dive at night equalled or bettered US day bombers accuracy against the synthetic oil plants.

Conclusion: it depends on what you want your bomber to do!

[Wuzak]

The B-17 wasn't that much faster than the Lancaster (at least the later versions with all those defensive guns), and rarely, if ever, used that speed. Most of the time to target was spent at around 180mph, because of formation flying for mutual defensive fire. Lancasters, on the other hand, flew in looser formations and around 220mph. Not sure that I would want a Lanc in a rigid formation.

[curmudgeon]

Lancasters were used extensively and effectively in daylight after D-day.

The USAAF had successfully conducted a battle of attrition against the Luftwaffe and with the diminution of the German defensive fighter arm and the very important reduction in warning time that accompanied the loss of France, Lancasters could operate against German targets. The objective of bombers is to get to target, bomb and return, and if they don't even see enemy defences so much the better.

As has been covered under other topics on the list, the loss of France in May 1940 completely turned around the conduct of the war. And the loss of France was a bit of a long-shot fluke ... but it happened.

[Lightning]

Hi Wuzak,

The B-17 wasn't that much faster than the Lancaster (at least the later versions with all those defensive guns), and rarely, if ever, used that speed. Most of the time to target was spent at around 180mph, because of formation flying for mutual defensive fire. Lancasters, on the other hand, flew in looser formations and around 220mph. Not sure that I would want a Lanc in a rigid formation.

All true, but this topic has more to do with the capabilities of the bombers under consideration than with the histories of how they were actually used.

The B-17F was about 40 mph faster than the Lancaster while the B-17G was about 15 mph faster. Not a whole lot, but enough to make a difference, especially to anti aircraft fire. The need for the slower speed was, as you said, to maintain tight formation in the interest of interlacing defensive fire. This was a direct result of the USAAF's decision to carry out a campaign of daylight bombing.

The Lancaster, bombing mostly at night, had no need to maintain such formations. Its eight to ten .30 cal guns were not all that important at night because it relied on the cover of darkness to elude the earlier night fighters, and those night fighters were rarely seen by the gunners. Since the Lanc's guns were only .30 cal, defensive formations during the day, such as those employed by the B-17s, would not have been all that effective; thirty cal. was just too light.

When it came to dishing out punishment to the German cities, the Lancaster was in a class by itself. The B-17's bomb load paled by comparison, and it had somewhat less range, but, as curmudgeon pointed out above, "The objective of bombers is to get to the target, bomb and return...." It is in the "getting there and returning" that I favor the Fortress.

Not only was the B-17 faster, but it had a 10,000 (!) foot higher service ceiling. This would make it more difficult to intercept with fighters and to hit with anti aircraft fire.

As stated earlier, the Lancaster's defensive armament was less effective than that of the B-17. The Fortress had more guns of larger caliber placed in more strategic locations.

The Lancaster had liquid cooled Merlin engines which were easier to knock out than were the robust P&W radials of the Fort.

The Lancaster had only one pilot and one set of flight controls. The B-17 had pilot, copilot, and dual controls. There is no easier way to bring down an aircraft than by killing its only pilot, and that only takes one bullet or small splinter.

Although this may be an arguable point, I believe that most students of the airwar over Europe would agree that the B-17 was more ruggedly built than any of the other heavy bombers of the war--to include the Lancaster. It was just harder to shoot down.

It is because of the foregoing points that I would choose the B-17 over the Lancaster in having more overall capability to carry out bombing missions when considering all altitudes, day or night, against both fighters and anti aircraft fire.

Regards,
Lightning

[Wuzak]

Agreed, the B-17 was much tougher than the Lancaster. Plus the Lancaster had one glaring weak spot - the belly. With no defensive guns down there it becomes a big vulnerability, though some were fitted with guns.

Some Lancaster crews (?) changed the .30s for .50s, most notably in the rear turret where 4 .30s were changed for 2 .50s.

[Wuzak]

The Lancaster had liquid cooled Merlin engines which were easier to knock out than were the robust P&W radials of the Fort.


Hi Lightning,

I think you mean the Fort had Wright radials....

[Kutscha]

Hi Lightning,

I think you mean the Fort had Wright radials....

Yes 4 Wright R-1820s. The B-24 used 4 Pratt & Whitney R-1830s.

[Kutscha]

The B-17F was about 40 mph faster than the Lancaster while the B-17G was about 15 mph faster.

I have the B-17G topping out at 287mph and the Lancaster topping out at 280mph. It doesn't say at what altitude though.

Not only was the B-17 faster, but it had a 10,000 (!) foot higher service ceiling. This would make it more difficult to intercept with fighters and to hit with anti aircraft fire.

Which would make hitting the target that much harder. There was a reason the American heavies typically bombed from the low to mid 20k altitude.

[Lightning]

Hi Wuzak,

Hi Lightning,

I think you mean the Fort had Wright radials....

You got me there! The P&W was so prevalent during the war that I had forgotten that the Fort used Wright engines. Thanks for setting me straight.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

I have the B-17G topping out at 287mph and the Lancaster topping out at 280mph. It doesn't say at what altitude though.

The numbers I gave were for War Emergency Power (WEP). I don't have the book in front of me at this moment, but I remember the speeds at WEP were:

B-17F: 325 mph
B-17G: 305 mph


Which would make hitting the target that much harder. There was a reason the American heavies typically bombed from the low to mid 20k altitude.

I agree. If you recall a while back, during the never-ending discussion we all had comparing the Lancaster with the Mosquito, I had brought out that very point i.e. the higher the bombing altitude, the less the accuracy. At the same time, the Mosquito's advocates rightly stressed that high altitude and high speed were the Mossie's best defense. It was also stated that, for the actual bomb run, the Mosquito would give up altitude to gain accuracy.

It would seem that, for the discussion at hand, we have switched positions, and this would be true if the only consideration was, as I stated earlier, the "getting there and returning" that makes me favor the B-17 over the Lancaster. It would be for this same reason that I would favor the Mosquito over either the B-17 or the Lancaster if the Mossie had the same bombing capability (i.e. range, bomb load, bomb variety, bomb-bay capacity, etc.) as they did--but it didn't.

In any event, the B-17 could descend to a lower altitude for its bomb run, but the Lancaster could not achieve the high altitude and speed of the Fortress to evade interception or flak. And, if bombing from 30,000 feet became necessary, the B-17 was a more accurate daylight bomber than the Lancaster. At night, for area bombing, such accuracy was not needed.

[Wuzak]

The B-17 had issues operating at height too, and not only because of bomb accuracy. Even at the heights they did operate they had problems with guns icing, ice locks in breathing masks, etc

[Kutscha]

The numbers I gave were for War Emergency Power (WEP). I don't have the book in front of me at this moment, but I remember the speeds at WEP were:

B-17F: 325 mph
B-17G: 305 mph


Is that 'light' or with a combat load?

One interesting little tidbit is the max diving speed:

Lancaster B.I - 360mph
B-17G - 305mph

This would seem to indicate the Lanc is more robust than the B-17.

On the ceiling of the B-17, is that in a 'light' or a combat load condition?

[Groggy]

High Folks

And over the Ruhr my fathers Lancaster did “well over 400mph” in a dive but it took two of them to pull it out. But he still preferred the Stirling?
Both needed power controls and more powerful engines.
Just a thought the B17 with four High altitude Fairey P24 could possibly been the best of them all? Twice as fast cruising, a bit like a Mosquito with twice the Bomb load?

[Lightning]

One interesting little tidbit is the max diving speed:

Lancaster B.I - 360mph
B-17G - 305mph

This would seem to indicate the Lanc is more robust than the B-17.

I'll have to look into that. It seems strange that the maximum diving speed (Vne) would be the same as the maximum level speed--even at WEP.

As to the Lancaster being more robust than the B-17 because it could dive faster, that does not necessarily follow. It is quite possible that the only part of the Fortress that could not have taken a high-speed dive would have been the "chin" turret. If that was the case, the rest of the plane could have been far more robust than the Lancaster while having a lower Vne. After all, the only significant difference between the B-17G and the B-17F was that turret, and I'm quite sure that the "F" was not limited to 305 mph--As I said, its WEP top level speed was already 325 mph.

An example that higher allowed diving speed does not equate to greater robustness is that the P-51 had a higher Vne than the P-38, but the P-38 was far more robust than the P-51.

On the ceiling [and speed] of the B-17, is that in a 'light' or a combat load condition?

Again, I'll have to check on that. I would assume that the speed and altitude specifications are for a normally loaded airplane, which would include the basic bomb load. Also, I remember reading somewhere that the B-17 had done some bombing from around 30,000 feet, but the results were not all that accurate. This may have even been done by the British using the earlier Fortress (maybe against coastal shipping), but I can't say that for sure.

[Lightning]

Quoting my earlier posting:

.... I remember reading somewhere that the B-17 had done some bombing from around 30,000 feet, but the results were not all that accurate. This may have even been done by the British using the earlier Fortress (maybe against coastal shipping), but I can't say that for sure.

I did a little digging and came across the following items:

On July 8, 1941, the British used three "Fortress I"s (B-17C) to bomb the German naval barracks at the seaport of Wilhelmshaven. They bombed from 30,000 feet with poor results. They were using the standard British bombsight of the time.

On July 24, 1941, Fortress Is bombed the German naval base at Brest, France where the "Gneisenau" was berthed. Again, they bombed from 30,000 feet. No hits were officially reported, but the aircrews claimed several. (We all know about the accuracy of "claims.") This time, the Sperry bombsight was used.

[ChrisMcD]

If we are thinking big and fast bombers, what about the Bloch 162

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d144/chrismcd3/mb1621mo.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloch_160

Fast, long ranged and with a decent bomb load - plus a mysterious role with KG 200.

And from the man that brought you the Bloch 157

Why stick with the familiar when you can have something a bit different.