🧥 Have you always wanted a distinctive and authentic leather flying jacket? Check out the fantastic range from Legendary USA here: calibanrising.com/flying-jacket/
Having seen the Lancaster "G for George" at the Australian War Memorial museum in Canberra, I can say that I have a much more "romantic" view of the famous English bomber. On a side note, I have a fun fact about Charles Bronson: Born to a Lithuanian-American coal mining family in rural Pennsylvania, Bronson served in the United States Army Air Forces as a bomber tail gunner during World War II.
@@mikefraser4513 I had both the Lanc and the Fortress as a boy in the early 70s,the Lanc I'm sure was G George,the Fortress nose decal was Joltin Josie or a Bit of Lace.
@@ianmedford4855 yes as a Brit I definitely preferred the Fortress as a lad they always looked more glamorous especially the daylight bombers of the 8th air force,silver with all the nose paint jobs,now I'm 66 I still prefer the b17 because I think it had more chance of getting you home with battle damage,it could take more of a beating than the Lanc but each of these bombers were wonderful,the film The Dambusters is so evocative of the time and hearing those 4 merlins roaring so yes the Lanc was wonderful in its own way.
My father flew 32 missions in Lancasters with RAF 101 Spec Opps in 1943/44, the highest fatality squadron in the RAF during the war, his was one of only two intact crews that completed their 30 missions. After his tour he could have gone home to Australia but he volunteered for Military Inteligence and flew classified missions in Beaufighters until July 1945. He died in 2019 aged 97.
God bless him,and lived to 97,my respect to the AUSSIES and Kiwis and other nations,remember the Polish 303 sqd,boy those Guy were good,im a pommie but well done all of you,my dad was in the desert war and Italy,apparently i was conceived on a beach in Naples
101 sq specifically carried out radar-jamming operations on enemy fighters - it was initially successful until the Germans found out about it and devised equipment which could detect where the signal was coming from - which was, of course, a big, fat Lancaster - whose crew may have thought themselves immune from attack.
Sadly a lot of people don't realize how much canada also used these planes we loved them and produced a lot of them as well, I mean hell almost every air cadet squad had used lancaster as a flight name multiple times and it's a legend in Canadian aviation I would rather fly that anytime
Fantastic, you made me happy, My cousin trained in Banff, he was with 625 sqdn, canadians in the crew, (later on) and was killed on 1/7/1944 in his Lancaster. I won't forget .I still have his photos of Banff, he said that he would return there to live after the War.
My father (Canadian) flew with RAF Bomber Command as a Lancaster Navigator. In 1968 I was a small child and we went camping in Ontario. The campsite next to us was occupied by an American family and their dad flew B-17's. My dad, never ever talked about the war, but he was so very gobsmacked and honoured to meet this new American friend...he praised him openly and made sure I knew just how BRAVE this man had been to fly in broad daylight over Nazi Germany...he was just in awe of that mans courage and selflessness. They traded some mementos (my dad gave him a poppy that he had in the car) and I will never forget the admiration they had for each other. I will remember!
Ditto on the dad thing Joey. My pop was a 'Wireless Air Gunner/Navigator' aboard a Lancaster and he always raved about the bravery of 'those Americans' who flew daylight raids into Germany while he was flying similar distances at night dodging flak and night fighters. The difference between your dad and mine is that for whatever reason he opened up about what happened. I guess it was good therapy. Mom told me that early on in their marriage she used to wake to dad's screaming and it was ALWAYS the same thing... "THEY'RE TRYING TO KILL ME!!!"
My father was an RAF mechanic for most of the war, he flew planes but not officially. He was training to be a full pilot in 1945 then when the war ended and the RAF no longer had any interest in new pilots. He bought himself out of the RAF (costing him much of his savings), and on his last day was told he must leave the air base by 12pm or he would be arrested. (Such a kind reward for all those years of faithful service).
Pretty much the same way people are treated when laid off in the USA. You get a file box to load your stuff, which is then inspected for "company property", then security "perp walks" you out the front door. And these management morons can't understand why they can't keep help, or find any to hire. I'll say this for Gen Z. They are definitely not buying into the management BS we baby boomers were sold. Answer me this.......if "hard work" is all it takes to get ahead, why aren't all of the undocumented workers in the US multi-millionaires? Some traditions never change.
@bobjackson . Don't know why in this day and age anybody would lift a finger to perpetuate this lost country. All politicians fault since Blaire's new Leibour.
What a wonderful vid. Consider me subscribed! First, the disclaimer: I'm a Yank, and my great uncle flew 49 missions as co-pilot of the Axis Ass Ache with the 9th AF out of North Africa. 9th crews were expected to complete 50 missions at the time, but on the 49th, shot to hell over the target, the crew agreed that rather than risk the trip back across the Mediterranean in a severely damaged bomber, they would attempt a landing at a fighter base on Sardinia. A fighter strip is a tough call for a fort on its best day, and they came in hot with a number of systems not working. The gear collapsed, and she slid off the runway, being written off as a useful piece of ordnance. Final log entry reads, "Conducted emergency landing at Sardinia. Crew survived. Plane didn't." I have great respect for the Lanc and its brave crews who went out to face the German defenses alone in the dark, but because I'm dedicated to keeping my mortal a$$ alive and well, I'd have to go with the Fort. My uncle, who retired after three wars as a major general and flew types from the P-36 to the Phantom II didn't talk about his service much, but he regarded the Fortress as a ship with an exceptional ability to bring you home, and the photos of battle-damaged B-17s that brought their crews back to fly another day are legend. Those pics and my uncle's experience inform my choice. Regarding your other question, the only American "special" operation I can think of was the B-24s that hit Ploesti at treetop height. If I recall correctly, that didn't go too well. Anyway, "Axis Ass Ache" wasn't famous by any means, but if you Google the name, you can get some rudimentary information and a couple of pictures. My uncle is Lt. Holt in the crew photo. Thank you so much for this tribute to ALL the brave airmen who did their part to secure freedom. May they never be forgotten!
I hate to say it but basing your choice on the Forts that came home with battle damage is survivorship bias. What about all the B17s that didn't make it back. There were alot of them that didn't.
I loved both planes as a kid, building models of both. Being American, I discovered the Fort first but as I read more about the war and discovered the Lanc, I became enamored with it as well.
I have to say, I have a love/hate relationship with the Lancaster. I was born and bred in the city of Lancaster, so I have a fondness for the Lancaster - but my uncle (one of my dad's older brothers) died over Holland as rear-gunner on a Lancaster. My dad didn't track him down until the late 1990s - he has a grave in the Netherlands, and finally got his name on the city of Lancaster's war memorial.
Indeed, my wife's uncle was radio/gunner in a Lancaster with a predominately Canadian crew. Shot down in Belgium in 1944, we finally got to the grave in 2017. He now is also immortalised on the Lancaster War Memorial in Lincoln. Everyman a hero.
That’s the worst position you could possibly be in as the crew of a Lancaster, they were known as tail end charlies, they were infamous as the mortality rate was extremely high, if a Lancaster was going down and you were a tail gunner, good luck getting out of the turret and the aircraft in time.
@@seafirefr.4751 I know mate,they couldn't even wear their chute it was that crammed.If they were going down, the rear gunner was expected to grab his parachute,strap it on ,then somehow revolve the turret enough to be able to drop out of the back!
My wife's uncle was a nose gunner in a Wellington bomber throughout WW2. He was 17 when he joined up as the idea of flying excited him. He survived the war, but refused to get on an aircraft for the rest of his life, not even at a museum. He told me that joining the RAF voluntarily was the worst decision he ever made.
I can't imagine how stressful that job must have been, you go up get shot at by flak, chased by fighters, absolutely freezing your arse off, then you get back to base to find maybe 30% of your colleagues are now dead/POWs(these figures did improve during the war, but equally some of the early raids suffered even worse casualties) you get a day off then do it again! The mental fortitude to do that is magnificent, do you think you could do that!? I have grave doubts that I could. We all owe an enormous debt of gratitude to these people, truly heroic.
Great video! I visited the RAF museum long ago and was shocked at how big the Lancaster was, made the B-17 look tiny. (I was also surprised at how big a Ju-87 Stuka was.) Being a Yank, I have a soft spot for the B-17, but also have huge respect the accomplishments of the Lancaster.
I think that's how it is for most of us. We tend to "adore" the planes of our own nations, but they're definitely both incredible examples of bomber aircraft.
You aren't remembering it correctly. The B-17 is slightly larger than the Lanc. It is 6ft longer and has a 2ft longer wingspan. The Lancaster is taller, however.
@@anthonydaria8728 In the RAF museum an Avro Lincoln bomber is also presented. She is an enlarged Lancaster. It's very easy to confuse - I did it firstly.
We get used to thinking of these as vintage (even old-fashioned) aircraft, but remember that for some 18-year-old farm hand who might never have been on a train and gets called up and put in one of these it would be very much an awe-inspiring state-of-the-art wonder, the equivalent of getting into a space shuttle for us.
My granddad served as a radio operator and mid-gunner on Lancasters, plus Wellingtons, etc. Never spoke about the war, but after his death his log books showed he kept volunteering for missions after he’d completed his mandatory number of sorties. It was a coin toss whether he would return each time he flew. Difficult to imagine the bravery of these teenagers/early 20s flight crew 🥺
Just shows how bonding the experience of combat is on men. I learned only a few years ago that Donald Plesense was a Bomber Command veteran, I thought he probably felt he was playing himself in The Great Escape.
My maternal grandfather was a Lancaster pilot and air bomber in WWII, then worked for the next few decades for the RCAF. He passed away in 2017. Didn't talk much about his time, but he never regretted bombing "those bastards". Different world, indeed.
As a Son of a retired RAAF Member and Veteran my Father spent 5 years in Malaysia during the Malaysian conflict serving for over 20 years, In 1978 upon his retirement as a senior NCO in charge of Training My Father lived and breathed the RAAF even after retiring...I always said if not due to family reasons Dad would of had to of been kicked out of the RAAF he loved it until the day he Passed...RIP Dad and to all the Men that have served and sacrificed
Lancaster! I read 3 books written by an Australian Lancaster crew member who flew in Bomber Command. As you said there was little recognition given to the crew of Bomber Command and he was trying to raise awareness through his books. The Australians found it particularly tough because the Australian public felt they had been abandoned by them during the Pacific war, and some of them were even sent white feathers! Back to why I would like to fly on a Lancaster, according to the author Laurie Woods, the Lancaster was just as strong as the B17. One Lanc went into an almost uncontrollable dive after being hit by flak. They said the airspeed indicator went off the ’chart’! The pilot had to get two other crew members to help him pull the stick back and they recovered. Could you imagine the stresses on the airframe? Another Lanc was returning from a raid and knew that flak along the Dutch coast would be particularly heavy, so they flew very low to escape the radar. Suddenly there was an almighty bang, but they were able to keep flying. When they returned to base there was a twelve inch rip in one of the wings, like someone had taken a buzz saw to it!!! They think they probably flew into a barrage balloon cable! Not too many planes would survive that. Another point about the Lancaster was that, unloaded, they had the same power/weight ratio of a Spitfire and often after unloading their bomb load, they were able to outfly the night fighters using a corkscrew manoeuvre.
The attrition rate of 53% the video says doesn't tell you that there was an average 45% _death_ rate over the war, 84% during '43 to '44, for Bomber Command. How stupid were the people sending white feathers to men who knew they were as likely as not to make it home after just 30 flights simply because they were risking their lives in a different part of the world.
Both my grandfathers fought in WW2, one was amongst the few Lancaster pilots who completed his required operations and would go on to train pilots as well as fly glider missions. And the other trained in Signals and was an Aussie coast-watcher in the Pacific theatre. The pilot married a pretty young English woman after the war and brought her home to raise a family, and never spoke of the war other than a few rare occasions. One of those occasions was when he gave me a model lancaster kit for christmas, and took me aside to tell me how he used to fly one. But none of us really knew his full role in the war until his funeral where both the RAF and RAAF sent acknowledgements of his extensive service, much to the family's surprise. The other, despite his service, has never been acknowledged by the RSL as a returned serviceman because he never saw combat in theatre.. Even though avoiding combat was specifically part of his mission brief. Regardless of this, they still pick him up and plonk him on the back of a jeep every year for the ANZAC parade. He's 96 now, and all but completely deaf, no doubt in some part due to those years of monitoring heavy static. And boy does he have some cool war stories. :)
@@M3rVsT4H I knew a guy not far from me who fought with Z force in Borneo. For those guys their reunions were a bit like a jigsaw puzzle since they mostly operated alone in small groups.
Rolls Royce engines! A Lancaster would frequently fly directly over my office in a previous job I had, and every time I heard the Rolls Royce hum coming towards me, it was bliss. I once met a guy who'd flown 7 missions as tail gunner in G for George, which is on display in the Australian war memorial.
xcrockery FYI PACKARD in the USA built 55,525 Merlins in WW II and ALL 400 of the Canadian built Lancasters used the PACKARD Built MERLIN, not the RR built version, and yes they were different, also 1500 Mosquitos and 1200 Hurrycanes built in Canada used the PACKARD built Merlins !!!
@@wilburfinnigan2142 Aww! it's big mouth Wilbur, I thought you were dead? anyway, you built Merlins, you did NOT invent them!, and you built them to BRITISH specifications, and the only reason for that, is Britain were getting bombed, you Yanks were not! PMSL🧐🤓
I used to work next to an airport. One week there was a very special guest there, a B-17G flying daily in the Hillsboro Air Show. One beautiful day I heard the most glorious noise I'd ever heard from an engine as the building started to shake. When I ran outside, I watched that Fortress flying away. It had just taken off. The pilot put it on its wingtip after liftoff to regal our humble business with the sound of four synchronized radials at takeoff power... Simply AWESOME!!!
I'm just old enough to have known many WWII vets, I feel proud of all of them no matter what country they fought for, It's beyond me how the air crews of both British and American could get into the flying death boxes day after day knowing the odds were against you. My great uncle was shot down over Germany and was a POW till the end of the war.
I had a Great Uncle who was part of a Lancaster crew shot down over Holland returning from a raid on Germany. He was helped by the Dutch Resistance and remained in Holland until it was liberated by the Allies.
My friend’s father was on a Lanc. He was shot down and captured. The stories he had about his interment, being liberated by the Soviets, and his adventures avoiding those Soviets to get back to allied lines were incredible.
American and British ? May I remind you that out of the 55 000 bomber command men killed 4000 were australian and 10 000 were canadian, not to mention the New Zealanders, South Africans free Dutch, Belgians,Poles,Czechs,Danes, Norwegians.....Only an American could write American and British.
Since I was 10 years old, I have loved WW2 aircraft. Back then in the 1970s a lot of boys made model airplanes and there were 'Battle' and 'War' comics as well as WW2 movies. For some reason I retained my love of these aircraft even though it seemed like all my peers had lost interest in them as they got older. When I was 17, I was able to travel to the UK (from Adelaide, Australia) and visit London. While my mum and sister went to see Harrods, I took the advantage to get a train out of London and get to the RAF Museum. Finally, I got to see the fighters and bombers that I had so loved. This was and still is the pinnacle of my life. I had arrived.
I always preferred the "Commando" comics myself. They had thicker spines and an overall, more premium quality feel to them, yet were slightly cheaper than the "Battle" and "War" comics. When you're a poor kid with minimal pocket money, the choice was obvious.
yeah i grew up on things like a bridge to far and 633 sqn which cemented my love of the mossie. so when they posted the restored mossies second flight on go pro with no music it was magic to see the pilots view.
My Uncle Joe was a tail gunner in a B24 Liberator. His plane was severely damaged by flak on a bombing run over Germany and crashed when he returned to England. He did not survive, I don’t know if he was already dead when they crashed or not. It’s beyond my imagination what any of these crew men an airman suffered during World War II. Both B-17 and the Lancaster were crazy good machines piloted and manned by brave individuals. Hard to choose which one is better as they both did such a different things. Thankful for those sacrifices that were made and glad that it’s something I don’t have to do. Thanks for the great video I’ve been in love with all World War II planes for 63 years.
For me it has to be the Lancaster every time. So versatile and adaptable. What a kite! One thing you might like to revise is showing Wing Commander Guy Gibson VC as if he were still commanding 617 squadron in 1944. He left 617 squadron almost immediately after the dams raid and went on a goodwill tour to the States, then would not return to flying duties until 1944. He was tragically killed in action in a de Havilland Mosquito in 1944 being shot down over and crashing in Holland
Yes the Lancaster is a great bomber, world class, a beast of a bomber, legendary in every way, both aircraft were beautiful but deadly, the only thing I can say is it's defensive armament was not the same as the B-17, but at the end of the day the Lancaster was a better all around bomber pound for pound,.
@@johnadair6108ure but send over twice as many planes and about three times as many crew to achieve that task and drop those bombs from above 30,000 feet and miss far too many of your targets. And just fyi I have 2nd World War, Malaysian Emergency, Vietnam War and far more recent RAAF heritage in my family.
@@johnadair6108 During the Battle for El Alamein Lancasters flew 936 double crossing of the Alps bombing Luftwaffe airfields in Italy . Lancaster Range1660miles with 14000lbs Less load more range Not many times where the RAF asked for USAAF aid in bombing
B-17 vs Lancaster - Crew members were more likely to survive a crash landing in a B-17. I think the same goes for water ditching. B-17s that belly landed at an airfield were sometimes put back into flight condition. Photos of RAF crashes are not as common as USAAF photos and I don't think I've ever seen an intact crash landed Lancaster. As for escaping a damaged plane, the bomb bay of a B-17 was used (Supposedly the doors were spring loaded to open with 200 lbs pressure) and there were three exit hatches (Plus the waist windows) the Lancaster had two hatches and I guess the nose one is considered a fatal flaw. Another important consideration is daylight. Inside a pitch-black Lancaster fuselage scrambling to snap on your parachute, open and exit from the side fuselage hatch then hit the ground in your parachute in the dark - not knowing if you'll land in a lake or a pond, much less a tree... well... In daylight, at least you could see what you and your fellow crewmen were doing (and find your chute) as well as see the ground coming up at you when floating down. Bailing out over the Channel was different in daylight vs night too.
My father was flight engineer with the Lancaster (RCAF 1944-1961) Bomber training and Search & Rescue post war. I was a young air force brat growing up at the time and so fond memories will interfere with any objective choice. These two aircraft had indeed differences but worked as a team to achieve an end to stupid wars. In any conflict team work is the key.
Lanc as that is what called by so many Kiwi's flew in in WW2. God Bless her QEII has moved on! Just watching this documentary reminds me of what a small country like New Zealand did to defend Britain and the Empire! God Bless her and God Save the King! I think the Lanc was the best night time bomber and the B-17 was the best daytime bomber! the B-24 was the best all round bomber! Although the Halifax was also a great Bomber! The British Short Stirling was even worse than the He 177. The He 177 was a serious aircraft, it just had a few flaws! The Stirling looked great but was a hunk of S! I learnt a great deal out of this, thank you!
The Heinkel 177 Greif, would have been a greater success if fitted with four individual engines instead of placing one engine behind the other. This led to overheating and engine fires.
@@peterstubbs5934 Cheers Peter from NZ. I had an uncle who flew for the RAF during the war. Did his training here at home. Dad still remembers Uncle Don in the kitchen at home in his uniform the day before he sailed for the UK. My Uncle Don flew Hurricanes and P47's and survived. UK and US of course, so I don't have any bias. The Lanc and the B17 in fact had similar capacity, but one design favoured more and larger bombs, while the other favoured more guns, crew and armour. Both fantastic aircraft and both filled their roles well. I wouldn't care if the Allies took the fight to the Axis solely in Tiger Moths. If the craft does the job, it gets the thumbs up from me.
One other thing to mention are the bomber's durability. I don't know much about the Lancaster, but stories like ye olde pub show how insanely durable the b 17 is. The pub made it back with only one engine at full power, no rudder, half of a vertical stabilizer, a gaping hole in the side, and only one person was killed.
The Lanc wasn't very durable. First its engines (while good, same ones on the Spitfire) but just couldnt take a beating like the B-17 Pratts could. They were liquid cooled so one bullet in the radiator and that was it, the engine was done. Lancs also had the tendency to burn or explode when hit, roasting the crew.
@@stevekaczynski3793 Is it not funny that 3349 Lancs were lost from Apr 42 to April 45 and all Bomber command lost 8233 in 6 years While the hot shot USAAF LOST 10152 in 4 years So I would say that Bomber Command not only dropped more bombs but did not lose as many/year
The De Havilland Mosquito in a slightly altered form, could carry 4000 pounds of bombs, at high speed, with two engines. It's astonishing to think that a huge B-24 could only carry a fraction more than that. Given the choice, though, it would be a Lancaster every time. Endlessly adaptable, and incredibly strong. Accurate, too. Many raids by the US had tried to destroy the vital Bielefeld railway viaduct in Germany. In 1945, One 'Grand Slam' bomb was dropped, by a Lancaster of 617 (Special Duties) squadron, next to the viaduct, and destroyed a huge section, rendering it useless for the duration of the war.
How far could a Mosquito carry that load though? A B-24 could carry 5000lbs to Stuttgart or Frankfurt. It could carry 8000lbs to the low countries or northern France. The Mosquito was really cool, but there's probably a reason they didn't just build those.
@@420JackG Swift google shows that the radius of operation for a mosquito with 4000lb bomb was between 535 and 550 miles... they regularly bombed berlin with the 4000lb bomb..Also the typical cruising speed of the Mosquito was around 240mph with a max speed around 400mph (depending upon mark) , while the max speed of the liberator was around 290mph. There are stories of mosquito's doing 2 missions in one night. They also had the lowest loss rate of any bomber in WW2
@@420JackG a Mosquito could carry a 4,000lb bomb to Berlin. That same 4,000lb bomb wouldn't fit into a B-17 because the bomb bay was too small. (Source - Donald Bennett's war memoir, he was the founder and commander of the RAF Pathfinder Group) For specialist roles the Lancaster was superb but as a general purpose bomber the Mosquito beats it and the B-17 hands down.
DH98 Mosquito B. Mk IV 283 built Night bomber using Merlin 21 or 23. Bulged bomb bay fitted to some to allow carriage of 4,000 lb bomb internally. Max speed 380 mph, max weight 21,462 lb. Twenty seven built as B.Mk IV modified for PR role BAE Mosquito page
Later Canadian-built Mk X Lancs were equipped with Martin dorsal turrets mounting twin .50s. At about 13:50 there's a glimpse of 'VeRA', the CWH Lanc, showing this arrangement.
Very thorough analysis, great job! One important aspect overlooked is how each aircraft facilitated or hampered teamwork and moral of the crew... For instance, it has often been mentioned that the Ju-88's clustered seating arrangement gave the crew the sense they were not alone in the vast sky. This sense that you were right there with your team gave a real sense of comfort when you're nerves started to create doubt in oneself.
I applaud both bombers, but if I had to choose, I think I'd go with either of them as the pros and cons are fairly equal overall. That's a hard call. They are both beautiful.
@Gilad Pellaeon I'll take a moment to mention the "bomber will always get through" mentality before the war, usually held up to derision by the ill-informed. The truth is that in the mid to late 30s fighters weren't that fast, and had huge trouble intercepting the Forts. Thus the conviction that bombers were untouchable. This was before the Spitfire and Bf-109 took to the air. After 1940 the (mostly) conventional wisdom that it would be impossible to design an escort fighter that had both the range to keep up with the bombers, yet still meet German fighters on even terms. ... One of the rarely examined features of the Mustang is that it actually enjoyed some extra thrust from the air leaving the belly scoop. The synergy of the Merlin mated to the Mustang airframe was one of the miracles of the war. Just don't tell the Thunderbolt pilots. :)
📢 If you've enjoyed this video, Why not watch another one. Or even better, support this channel through Patreon, giving a virtual tip or making a usual purchase through one of my affiliate links (at no extra cost to you). 👍Find more details here: calibanrising.com/support/ I appreciate your help and together we can make this channel even better!
Wow all that sound gear , I can barely hear you , please speak up , at the very least check your sound levels after you recorded it , an listen to it Before you post ., eat a steak , have a cigar , it will help .,
8:28 that munitions is a royal navy bomb that the RAF weren't interested in but was used by the USAF to attack U-Boat pens and other hard targets it's got a hardened nose like the grand slam and has a rocket motor in the back to increase the speed used on U-boat pens it was devastating.
Well, Phil, it appears my first attempt to respond to your excellent video didn't get posted. So here's my answer to your question about which bomber I would prefer to serve in. I have to prefer the B-17 for its: -Superior defensive firepower and better visibility (as you observed), along with better arcs of fire. -The very tough Wright Cyclone radial engines. -Two pilots. -The ability to be less hindered in getting out of a disabled plane. Which was the better airplane? That depended on the mission requirements. Many tradeoffs were necessary in order to provide the optimum bombing capability against a given target. Fortunately, the two very different bombers provided most of those capabilities between them. Thank you for an exceptionally well done video. Great portrayals of the two planes. Very objective comparisons. My father in law trained as a pilot in both the B-17, and later the B-29. I find it deplorable that Bomber Command personnel had to wait until most of them were passed before receiving their due tribute in 2012. Eternal gratitude for all who served in the American and British bombing campaigns.
Thanks for the neat video, but the B-24's max Bomb load was 8000 pounds, the B-17 was 6000. Check with USAF records to verify this. Other then that small bit really good video.
My uncle flew 35 missions as a ball turret gunner when he was stationed at Great Ashfield in '44. One of his planes was shot down and he bailed over Belgium. They helped him get back to base 2 weeks later and he continued his career. His main plane, Li'l Audrey (42-32008) flew 111 missions with zero casualties and survived the war. He even claimed at least one enemy plane shot down. But he did catch a piece of flak in the sole of his boot, which he wrote "Made in Germany" on and kept as a souvenir. Also took part in the first daylight bombing raid over Berlin. It's mind-boggling that all these fellas were just kids.
Interesting. They both have their pros and cons. As an American, I'd fly in the Boeing, but simple out of tradition and respect for the guys that I know that flew them in the war. I remember all the arguments about air superiority regarding the 17s and the 24s. A friend of mine who flew a 17 said that if you survived in one or the other, that was your favorite. Made sense to me. A lot had to do with luck, as all of them were extremely dangerous to be in during combat.
My Father piloted both 17s and 24s on 39 missions with the 8th including two Schweinfort raids. He was awarded the DFC with clusters. He had great respect for Bomber Command and the Lancaster.
One thing the LAnc and B17 shared was a wing with 2 main spars. The B24 Liberator had a wing with only one main spar, and this adversely affected its ability to handle battle damage.
Good point bringing up the cramped conditions. I remember being around 10 or 11 and going to an air show with my father and getting the chance to roam around inside a B-17. It was very tight even for a young child like myself. One of the points I bring up humorously when talking about such things with friends is that being 6’3, I would have been fortunate enough to be too large for most naval postings and a lot of Air Force jobs, but would probably would have been the unfortunate first person in the infantry squad to die because I’d stick out! Side note: We just recently in the past week had a local WWII veteran die. When reading his obituary it said he had been a survivor of 35 missions over Europe as a bombardier, spread between the B-24 and the B-17. He got his pilots license after the war and flew well into the 90’s.
I’m going to have to go with the B17, purely because I’m a Yank. Three of my grandmother’s brothers were in the USAAF, and I’m fortunate to have inherited one of my uncles B6 jacket. He had been a crew member in the 8th airforce.
Not sure the reason for the comparison. It’s more about the crews for these machines and I for one will be forever grateful for all the crews no matter their origins. Trying to conduct a contest between two allies makes little sense because both of the bombers were flown way outside their specifications during combat by their respective crews rather then die. Possible Death is a great incentive to force your equipment to do more then a spec sheet would indicate. Condolences for Elizabeth II she was a special lady.
As an American kid growing up in the 1980s, I was privileged enough to see several b17s fly over the years either at our local air show (in Smyrna, TN), or flying in or out of it. One came right over our house when I was about 12 or 13……coolest thing ever. When I was 22 I finally got to take an inside tour of a b17 on static display at the previously mentioned air show. I was really shocked to see how cramped the interior space was aboard the aircraft, especially given the massive outward appearance of the plane. Of course, that was in my summer attire and not full battle gear these brave lads had to wear on missions. I have seen the inside of a Lanc on TV only. I never had the honor of seeing one in real life. Those poor souls had a lot of courage to go do war in a cramped airplane that you can just about poke a hole in with an ink pen. Thanks for your video and god bless from North Carolina. Cheers!
This may come off as a diplomatic copout but I would choose either bomber based on the mission I would be, theoretically, tasks with. Firearms, fighters & bombers are all like tools: choose based on task at hand to maximize success. As you highlighted so thoroughly, each bomber had their strengths & weaknesses. Fortunately for humanity, we had both bombers on the right side of history. Cheers
I met a Canadian airman once, who used to be a rear gunner in a Lanc. He said he was lucky because some of the other rear gunners in his squadron were basically hosed out of their station on arrival back home.
The 50 cal was a hell of a weapon, but the German fighters used 20, 30 even 37 mm explosive canon shells.. these did, very often tear a bomber both B17 and Lancaster to pieces, not to mention what they did to a human body...all, American, British and many from the Empire were brave to have to endure such attrition... An Uncle of mine flew a B24 (RAF) in the last years of WW2 on clandestine sorties dropping equipment and agents... he survived Flak and Night fighters only to die in a motorcycle accident in 1952.... he was 26 years old
A lot is made of the Mk 108 30 mm cannons used in the Me 262 but the thing people forget is they had a very thin point and housing. When they exploded it was like a large burst of air that ripped aircraft skin appart. It looked devastating but the internal structures often remained intact allowing the aircraft to return home. Add to that the Mk 108 had such a low muzzle velocity it was only effective to 500 yards while the Browning .50 cal was good up to 1700 yards. The earlier Mk 103 30 mm auto cannon used on earlier German fighters was much more deadly having a greater velocity and range. If I had to chose between the .50 cal and any of the cannons I would stick with the Brownings myself. Faster firing rate, longer range, more ammunition carried and simpler to service. All the cannons could be problematic.
B24 and B25, crews are often missed, along with crews of many forgotten airframes, that struggled in the era that was 1940-45, seems people have forgotten the patriot war for freedom,
@@jimdavison4077 Even the Hispano 20 mm ? After the RAF's go to firm (Martin Baker or Miles, I forget which) had sorted the bugs in the Le Chatterellaut belt feed of course. The debugged Hispano was so reliable that the RAF was able to save weight by deleting the in flight pneumatic cocking system and do the cocking on the ground prior to task off. Sadly when the RAF presented the schematics of the successful gun to the USA the NIH syndrome cut in and the US tried to improve on it! A sad story ensued, but let's not go there, and another reason the US stuck to 50 cal for wing mounted guns - allegedly. At least during WWI you could usually get at a gun breech in flight and clout it with a big hammer.
@@TheArgieH the 20 mm Hispano had issues right to the end of the war. Even into the jet era there were problems. The weapons systems were a lot more complicated than one would think. Even the machine guns on the Spitfires and Hurricanes had a complicated cooling system which cost the lives of.many RAF pilots who lost track of temps and their guns qould not fire. Then during early jet designs the gas from firing the guns would disrupt airflow into the engines and cause flameouts. The Hispanos had multiple issues on various aircraft. That said they were a good weapon providing extra punch that the standard 303 rounds early in the war.
@@jimdavison4077 Thank you. That's very interesting. Umm.... my book on aircraft armament goes into some detail on the Hispano, so I suppose the question as always is which Hispano - there were many Mks and it was quite different from the German equivalent which was actually Oerlikon based. The standard RAF gun had of course been modified to overcome recognised problems which the mods did successfully. As I mentioned, the in flight cocking systems were removed because they had become redundant. There were Hispano Spitfires in service as early as the BoB and they were indeed problematic. They were so bad that aircrew pleaded for their old Brownings back. The problem there was wing flexing that jammed the feeds. On gun temperature the principal problems were wing guns being too cold, so much so that warm air systems were introduced for high altitude interceptors, it gets really cold up there and icing was a real general hazard. Look also at the wing gun spacing at the time of the BoB. The Spitfire wing was so complicated (it was almost hand built) that the guns are spaced right across the wing in a 1 2 1 formation. Contrast that with the Hurricane which was regarded as a far steadier and better gun platform. Those red linen patches pasted over the muzzles are to inhibit icing up until the guns are warmed through by firing, as well as a simple foolproof indicator of gun status to ground crews. Moving on, the long barrel HV Hispano had a problem with accuracy because at high speed the leverage caused, you guessed it, flexing. This accounts for the short barrelled Hispano Mk Vs actually buried in the wings of the Sea Fury. The Meteor Nightfighters had a similar problem, the nose was taken up by the AI set, which necessitated moving the cannon out to mid wing. Again the long barrel leverage introduced problems and the wing flexing certainly didn't help, thus that problem came full circle - though more about hitting the target than jamming. I do not know of much serious problem with RAF Hispano muzzle blast, though flameouts were indeed a real problem with early jets, I know that the 30mm Aden and its relatives could be problematic. Finally my books on the Hurricane don't show any complicated cooling system for the Mk 1 with its Brownings, in fact I didn't see anything particular complicated looking over the Manston Mk II (it saw WWII service for real) with its standard Mk II fit of 4 x Hispano 20mm, though there were no barrel shrouds which might be factor. The RAF always hankered after bigger guns. I am fond of the Zeppelin killer prototypes experimented with between the wars. The specification called for an oblique 37mm C.O.W., and I have a picture somewhere of an experimental war time Wellington fielding a special low profile turret for a 40mm gun (mid upper). I bet that had a slower R.O.F. than a Browning 303. Incidentally when pre-war the RAF was considering replacements for its dear old much respected Vickers Maxim, they wanted a far higher rate of fire iincrease the chances of a hit. Even pre-war, aircraft speeds were such that the combined speed of passing aircraft was up to 500 mph+. They tested the Browning, though it had to be modified to fire with an open bolt to avoid cook off of the heavy nitro content of the British 303, the Vickers K gun a.k.a. the Vickers GO and I believe a Lewis gun for comparison purposes. In any event, the Vickers GO won hands down, it was far more reliable, it had a R.O.F. of 1200 r.p.m., with a possibility of even more. The wee small snag was that it was fed by 50 and 100 round pans (some folk get confused between the Lewis and the Vicker K because both were pan fed (look for the indentations, that's a Lewis)). The RAF chose the modified Browning, imagine squeezing 8 x 100 round pans into that Spitfire wing. The Gladiator carried a Vickers K in a tray under each wing and a pair of Maxims under the cockpit , at least until they switched to Brownings. Surplus Vickers K ended up in SAS trucks and as anti aircraft mounts.
In regards to the Lanc and night missions, there were Lanc pathfinder units that would fly ahead of the main force to drop incendiary flares to light the target. I'm about the "stealth" the Lancs provide. My grandfather wad also a surviving tail gunner. I recall reading his log books and running into Me 262.
I too lived at Duxford late 50's early 60's it was then what was called a Moribund station back then, my dad was based at Stradishall , there was a bit of life in 1960 (I think) when Stradishall''s main runway was rebuilt and we had Gloster Meteor´s zooming around one of my favorite bases, Ternhill being the other :)
B-17 is my choice to fly in (but I love both aircraft!) Reasons: 1. Radial engines are slightly less susceptible to damage. 2. .50 caliber defense guns. 3. Ball turret. 4. Two pilots. 5. Flew higher. 6. More escape options.
My Dad was in RCAF Lancaster's from 43 to the end (bombardier and 2nd Navigator) and my impression of his impression (he past in 2019) was that the training was different as well as the aircraft. My understanding was that Lancs would have two navigators per aircraft, while the B17 would not as they flew formation in daylight. I watched the Memphis Belle with him and while watching the scene where the novice B17 crew crashes tragically on the runway he told me that would never happen. He said that the pilot brought the aircraft in alone after the crew would bail out over the aerodrome, which makes perfect sense. His ripcords from those jumps used to hang in the garage.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that bomber send up a flare beforehand indicating wounded on board? Seems pretty plausible then that there would still be crew onboard
According to Murray Peden in his classic account of being a bomber pilot with Bomber Command A Thousand Shall Fall, the dorsal turret on a night bomber was useless as the gunner could not detect fighters below him because the land below was so dark that you could not see a fighter's silhouette like you could if you were a tail or upper gunner. Also, a dorsal gunner who stared at the fires below was blinded for a considerable period of time.
The Lancaster ventral turret was aimed optically making it difficult to use at night and in low light. Only a few were ever fitted. There was no room for a ball turret because of the huge continuous bomb bay.
As to which I would have preferred to serve in I think I would go for the Lancaster. Although by percentage it had a higher casualty rate, that was partly effected by the length and amount of units in service in the earlier days. But the main reason I think is that at night the fear would have been less as you couldn't see all the fighters, or even the amount of flak (only seeing what was close and in front of your eyes) but in daylight more prone to see all the carnage around you. I am sure I would have been totally terrified, but less so at night where your vision was limited. Plus the Lancaster was far more maneuverable and better able to avoid trouble possibly.
My great grandfather was a Lancaster pilot in WW2. He wasn’t shot down however, the flight after he left his crew, his plane was shot down and all the crew were killed.
Something I don't know about, for the B17, is its survivability with engine loss...my friend's father told of flying his Lancaster 'home' for, I think, over two hours, one *ONE* mighty Merlin! Only 100 or so feet altitude, coming over the English coast, but just enough to get her down... So, interesting to hear what folks might have to relate about B17's engine capabilities?
Three engine returns were common place during the war. Two engine was possible if you didn't lose both engines on one side, that made trim and turns dicey. The two advantages of the fortress was air cooled engines and more guns The merlins were nice but suffered from the golden BB syndrome, one hole in the cooling system and the engine was done. One other nice feature was that once the props bent on a gear up landing the pilots could use the brakes for a few seconds.
Total bullshit. I'm sorry but there are loads of historians who have compared survivability between the Lancaster and the B17... and the B17 wins handily. When flown in comparable missions, the b17 was much more likely to return to base. Yes, daylight bombing was more dangerous than nightime bombing, and that is precisely why the myth of the Lancasters durability was born. But this is highly problematic, because the reason the British began nightime bombing was precisely BECAUSE of the low durability of their bombers. I.e. they tried daylight bombing, which was considerably more accurate, but the loss rate of British bombers was atrocious. Far higher than american bombers even. Thus the British switched to nightime bombing. Just a few things to consider - the b17 had radial engines - proven to be far more robust/tolerant to damange than water-cooled v12s. The b17 had far more armor for the pilot and co pilot. The b17 had nearly double the Lancasters defensive armament and in superieor/overlapping feilds of fire configuration. - the lancastesr bombs had to be armed BEFORE takeoff - which meant that they flew the entire mission with ARMED bombs. Yes, lancasters survived more missions - because they were nightime bombing - because their loss rate during daylight operation was completely unnacceptable - which led British command to adopt nightime bombing, which has been shown by many historians, including British ones, to have been highly innacurate - about ten times less accurate than daylight bombing. Truly. And yet these factors are never pointed out by Brits. I like the Lancaster, I truly do, but my god you Brits are so damn biased that you cannot even think critically about these machines or why they were used the way they were.
Thanks for the great content! I must admit I’m biased because my dad was a B17 flight engineer and top turret gunner but I’d prefer to crew in the B17. They were so durable and relatively well armed that I think my survival chances would be a little better than in the Lancaster - plus I think I’d be too tall to be the ball turret gunner. That might change my answer if I was shorter.
I agree with what somebody said earlier, if I had to be flying over Nazi Germany and could choose, it would be a Mosquito. The Lancaster is iconic for Brits and Canadians, and the B17 for our American cousins. Got to admit that the statistics for the B17 are more favourable for the crews. If they were shot down B17 crews had a better chance of getting out and surviving. I always preferred the idea of going in daylight as well, though it does seem crazy to do so. God bless all of them.
Halifax was excellent especially after the engine upgrade, meet a pilot with 37 sorties in a Halifax he loved it, I thanked him for his service what a cool dude! he thought the Lancaster was over rated do to very favorable reviews, he said Lancaster were very hard to bail out of when shot down.
This sort of loyalty to a particular aircraft is interesting. The Hurricane was often seen as second fiddle to the Spitfire, as was the HP Victor to the Avro Vulcan, post-war. One pilot whose bio I read flew both Lanc and Hali on operations and said the former was eager to leave the runway and reluctant to land, often floating for some time prior to touchdown, whereas the Hali took ages to get airborne and gave a sort of groan on landing, as if it were glad to be back on terra firma.
My Grandfather (Dad’s Dad) was a tailgunner in a Lancaster. He meet my grandmother who was a field nurse at his airfield. His squadron was part of Guy Gibsons, their aircraft never flew the Dambuster mission due to a bomb being ready but the spooling rig not. It's always fascinated me how the Lancaster was a single-pilot bomber but for both it and the B-17’s rolls in the bombing war over Europe I have to give ❤ to the men of bomber command for doing what needed to be done to turn the tide of the war
My late dad used to tell me of the times he and his friends as ten year old would cycle to prees heath airfield, in Shropshire, to watch the yanks coming back to land, after a bombing mission. On occasions a flare would be fired upwards. Some he said we're shot full of holes, some trailing smoke and some with bits of the tails missing. They would watch as some skewed to a halt on one wheel only, screeching to a halt, Then the fire Crews and ambulance Crews would race out. They saw some on stretchers, others slumped on the ground, And more still, jackets open, just standing. Some times on their way to debrief, aboard trucks, they would throw gum and hershey bars over the fence, And ask if my dad had any big sisters. He remembered them as being generous, smiling, but most times their faces were dirty But they never forgot the gum or hersey bars.
One of the most interesting things that would have been good to cover is the ability of the aircraft to absorb damage and return home. Of course the B17 was famous for that. Maybe the Lancaster was as well but I haven't seen the same level of comment about that capability. Given a choice I'd prefer the plane most likely to survive! :)
@@Gearparadummies No they were up against more Japs in Burma The RAAF were there though And the BPF was at the Philippines with the Seafires flying interception because of their superior Climb Rate And it was a Seafire that flew the last offensive sorties over the home Islands Gee you had to do something over in the west we had been beating the Luftwaffe since Oct 39
@@jacktattis You have to factor sorties The level of difficulty. The US had more planes to loose. The US did more dangerous day runs. Dont think thats a credible factor. Plus the Britts were always more cautious and took fewer risks
@@labla8940 So the raids to sink the Tirpitz by the Lancs were cautious one of the raids was 1600 miles The only raid the USAAF did that was its equal was the raid on Ploesti 2. The Amiens raid by the Mossies was cautious 3. The 936 Double crossing of the Alps by the Lancaster bombing Luftwaffe positions in Northern Italy to hold down the Luftwaffe from going to support the Germans at El Alamein was cautious 4.The long range attacks by day and night on the UBoats hundreds of miles out in the Atlantic was cautious 5. The 100s of missions by the Swordfish flying out of Malta sinking 50000 tons/ month of enemy shipping for 2 years in the Med was cautious . My friend whatever your USAAF did it was pioneered by the RAF /FAA
Great video. One thing I saw elsewhere is the the cruising speed of the fort was about 280 empty, but decreased to 187 mph in order the ranges they needed to fly when fully loaded. The relative slowness of the B-17 was a huge concern compared to other bombers.
0:12 in 1981 age 5 at cosford, i was allowed into the cockpit of their mosquito sat in the pilot seat and moved the control surfaces and stick. omg it was the best experience i honestly have ever had 41 years later. i wish i could thank the guy who said "do you want a go inside"
The Lanc for payload . The Fort was half gunship half long range bomber . The evolution of the Manchester into the Lanc was fortunate , the original two engine layout being changed for a larger wing and four engines . We can never forget these thousands of young men ,flying repeatedly and knowing the odds.
It hardly carried these loads in normal missions. Plus it had the issue of not being able to arm and disarm its payload in flight which is pretty bad when you lose an engine over friendly territory
@@owenshebbeare2999 Easily,only few guns to carry and less crew.Lower flying alttitude wouldnt need as much gasoline less weight could be replaced with bigger bomb load.
@@casematecardinal To be fair, it could disarm its weapons in flight. It's done via a solenoid that retains or releases an arming wire according to the position of a switch. Retain the arming wire and the fuse is armed when the bomb is released. Release the arming wire and it goes down with the bomb still in place preventing the fuse from arming. If you choose "jettison", the bombs won't arm. It's the same way all aircraft manage external stores, even to this day. To make the comparison between the Fort and the Lanc, you need to put them on the same mission. Both during the day with comparable escort, or both at night. This would narrow the differences a lot. I wouldn't want to be in a Lanc in a daylight raid, its defensive armament is way too feeble. And a Fort an night without the need to burn tons of fuel organizing into formations would be able to carry quite a bit more in bomb load. Still, maybe not as much as a Lanc but appreciably more. And a Fort demonstrated its ability to bring crews home after enduring horrific damage has been proven beyond any doubt.
I used to live near Niagara Falls, Ontario. In the summer the Lancaster from the Hamilton Air Museum would fly over my house on its tourist flight. Loved that sound and I would rush out to watch it rumble past every chance I could. The museum flies the plane regularly and you can pay to get on a flight. All money going to the up keep of their fleet, which they also fly. So, for me its hands down the Lancaster. Spoke to my friends Uncle who was in the war, and lived a long life. Told him how much I loved the sound of that plane flying past. He looked at me and said "Imagine a hundred of them." Must have been incredible to see that.
There is nothing that sounds like a Lancaster! The noise alone seals it for me. I am just so glad that there will be more flying soon. Another being restored to flight worthy in England and one that Kermit Weeks has, however unknown when he will get to it, someone needs to fund that. That with the two currently flying would be magnificent. I would give anything i had to see four Lancaster's flying in formation. I was very excited to see 21 Spitfires flying in formation, and that was just on UA-cam. Nothing beats the glorious music of the Rolls Royce Merlin!
Just a couple of points that I have come across over the years, Schrage Music was known about by the heads of bomber command,the RFC had used a basic type to shoot down zeppelins, damage to the few bombers that managed to return after this attack proved this. They apparently kept it quiet for morale reasons. 0.5 inch guns where not used by night bombers even though they had been requested because again argued by the powers that be that their greater range over the 0.303 was superfluous as night fighters where only visible to gunners at a range that would be compatible to the 0.303. How true all this is I dont know as its only stuff I have read/seen on line.
Avro Type 694 Lincoln Developed from the Avro Lancaster. 2x 0.5 in (12.70 mm) M2 Browning machine-guns nose turret[N 2] 2x 20 mm (0.787 in) Hispano MK.IV cannon or Hispano Mk.V cannon dorsal turret[N 3] 2x 0.5 in (12.70 mm) M2 Browning machine-guns tail turret[N 4] (Some aircraft fitted with a single 0.5 in (12.70 mm) M2 Browning in a ventral position)
As a Canadian, I’m going to have to take the Lancaster. It carried over 2 times the bomb load of the B17. My mom also worked on their assembly in Milton, Canada.
On average Lanc's carried about 1/3 (2,000 lb) more than 17's. Where did the engines in Mark III Lanc's (Dambusters) and Mark X (Canada) come from? Who paid for them? I found some interesting information in a document that can be found by Searching; Operational history of Lancaster 1B R5868 This Lanc flew 136 operational sorties in two years and ten months (less than one a week) and dropped "466 tons (assume long, ND) approx" or 3.42 long tons or 7,675 pounds on average. I did not deduct missions in which bombs were jettisoned due to engine failure or the entire load was flares or mission was called off in flight. I will leave that to someone dedicated to perpetuating the myth all Lanc's carried 14,000 pounds of bombs on every mission. On pages one and two (July and August 1942) the entire load was 3,360 pounds of bombs. On page one two raids were in daylight, the next daylight raid would be in July 44. On page two a bomb load is 2,000 pounds plus "6 x 4 flares". "(USA)" appears nine times with bomb type. Some of the notes are interesting. Recommendation by two pilots the aircraft be withdrawn from bombing, one friendly fire incident, "bomb doors damaged by bombs" and one midair collision with another Lanc over the target. I was amused by the listing of a USAAF general as "Passenger" (instead of observer) as if they were going to drop him off somewhere.
@@nickdanger3802 Damn sonebody else knows the truth. RAF figures throughout the war, total tons dropped divided by sorties flown averages less than 6,000# !!!!! Most people take what a lanc COULD CARRY as what it did and that is not true,,,,
As an American I'll open by saying one of my teen favorite aviation films was An Appointment in London (1951) when I finally found it on DVD I purchased a PAL copy from Ireland and used a computer to convert it to NTSC so I could watch on my television, about 2005. A PIII needing 30 hours to re-code 2hr of film. I have been to the RAF Museum London, seeing the planes from the outside and twice to the codebreakers school at Milton-Keynes. I think of the Tirpitz and Moore-Eder-Slope Dam raids as highlights of the European theater air combat. Now to your question: It would be the B-17. Why? Survivability, (as you started to mention @14 mins) in that the Boeing aircraft had three escape hatches compared to the single on the Lancaster. Furthermore on the lower turret position just think how many crew were lost not just to the blind spot, but the H2S blasting their position to the fighter waiting to play a little jazz solo on their fuel tanks.
Plenty of Brits on here voting for the Lancaster, but nobody is criticising them for being predictable. Why can't people just respect each other's opinions?
A good video. One point to note is that the photo on an RAF bomber with the damage to the upper fuselage is actually that of a Halifax that had been the recipient of some “friendly fire” from above in the shape of a bomb from another aircraft above it. Look at the tail fins. Not that anyone wants to talk about the Halifax, fine aircraft though it was….
"Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles" has a great video explaining why the B 17's altitude advantage is significant for reducing losses (especially from flak) in daylight raids. Also, these planes were vey rarely carrying max loads, or at max speed, or max altitude, or flying max ranges. (Yes, the Grand Slam was the max Lancaster load, but those were shorter-range missions.) IMO, the Lancaster was better for night, the Fortress better for day.
@@keithparkinson6170 Yes, Yagodnik USSR was used as refueling base AFTER the raid This was during Paravene, when Tirpitz was too far north for the bombers to return to Scotland on maximum fuelload Still doesn't make the attacks on Tirpitz Short range missions
Yes I remember climbing into to the only, at that time, flying Lancaster as a child, and was surprised like you about the cramped conditions. I often see the, now renamed, Phantom of the Ruhr passing over my house these days, sometimes accompanied with a spitfire or hurricane. My grandfather told me he remembered seeing dozens of them during WW2, spiralling up to gain altitude, before heading off to France.
Lancaster's were also built in Toronto, Canada during WW11, one stands (flies), around thirty ft on a concrete plinth, on parkland just west of the city (walking) next to the old Exhibition Stadium where the Blue Jays (Baseball team), had their home before Skydome.
The Norden bombsight was developed and tested in a desert atmosphere where the air pressure and temperature is relatively uniform. This allowed for only minor winds at a higher altitude to affect the drift of the bomb when released. When they got to the Western European theatre they found themselves in a completely different mix of temperatures and winds at varying heights. All of which affected the bomb while it was in flight to target.
Compared to the conditions over Japan, the jet stream, European weather wasn't as bad. Bombing accuracy was virtually non-existent... that's why LeMay switched to medium level raids, and firebombing tactics. He even said, " we better win this war or I'll be tried as a war criminal"
@@philgiglio7922 When they dropped the first atomic bomb they used the Norden bombsight and missed the aiming point by 800metres! This is ironic seeing that the Norden bombsight (named after him) was developed by a committed Christian on the basis that the more accurate bombing the less casualties there would be!
@@philgiglio7922 I can't comment generally on bombing raids over Japan. But I did look at the photos of a bombing raid on ball bearing ? factories in Akishi. The smoke was completely absent from residential part of the town, but obliterated the industrial area just to the west.
Thank you for this video. Growing up in the States it was natural to be interested in the B-17. I come from an Air Force family even up to the present day. My son in law was stationed at Wright Patterson AFB in Ohio which is nearby to the home of the US Air Force Museum in Dayton so we went to visit. They not only had a B-17 in the hangar but also a cutaway of the hull showing the crew positions. bomb load and specs on performance. It took up to 9 guys to fly one mission and the bomb load seemed small, largely inaccurate and the casualties in '43 and '44 were staggering. Fair to say now I wouldn't want to fly either one! When I was growing up veterans including my dad were raising families and most weren't interested in talking to kids about the war. Years later I did get to interview a B-17 bombardier who led a raid deep into Germany and was shot down in 1944. i asked him, "What were you most afraid of?" He said without hesitation, "Not doing my job. It meant some other guys would have to go back and risk their life because I failed." I'd bet anything that a Lancaster man would say the same. Last note. I asked, "What did the plane smell like after flak hit and you'd been wounded?" As if it had happened that morning he said, "Gasoline."
Lancaster without a doubt. I lived at Duxford for a year back in 1972/3 & visited the East Anglia Aeronautical Museum several times including when the Shackleton arrived from Kinloss where I had been stationed previously & watched it being rebuilt & a little later seeing a Spitfire brought over from Canada. My Wife & I had a tour around the Shackleton as her dad was one of the first aircrews to bring it into service & did a goodwill flight out to Canada before his demob in 1950/1. The guy who we spoke with was really impressed I had watched the Shack being rebuilt. We also attended the airday there that year which blew me away seeing all the aircraft I had read & heard about in my childhood. I also had been in the Air Cadets in the '60s so was right into aircraft. It was also a privilege to live on such a historic airbase & see a lot of the places where the Battle of Britain film had been made. I had seen the film on its release & have watched it several times since. Makes me feel at home
I loved the B-17 and the Lancaster, as a boy growing up (I am 65 now). Both fulfilled their mission masterfully, but don't shortchange the B-24. It had some drawbacks, but was able to carry a larger bomb load, faster than a 17. It's design also allowed for easier production, many being produced at Ford Motor Co., on Henry Ford's assembly lines. Al 3 were marvelous at what they did, and saved the world when we needed them.
My grandfather is a navigator in a lancaster. Did 30 missions during 1942 to 1943. Did training in Lancasters for the rest of the war in Scotland. I think he was very lucky to get through those 30 missions. He was asked to do another 30 but he chose the training job. thanks for the information.
I was at Duxford for the 75th anniversary of D Day in 2019. I took a virtual flight on a Lancaster. My buddy Mike, who served in the USAF and later the U. S. Coast Guard was along with me. Neither of us could speak after that experience. Yes, the Lanc has my respect, but the crews, any crews, who served during WWII have my undying respect!!!! Yes, I saw the memorial to the bomber crews as well. I am not worthy!!! But for me, put me in a P-47. 😍
Fun facts: 1.) The RAF’s DeHavilland Mosquito (a rapid twin-engined multi-role aircraft made of wood with a crew of 2/3) could carry the same bomb load as the B-17. 2.) The Lancaster was considered for the nuclear raids on Japan as the USA didn’t have a bomber with a big enough payload capacity prior to the B-29 entering service.
More like Fun Myths: Mossy fighter bombers, the most produced mark with a bomb bay, had a max bomb load of 1,500 pounds. Unmodified unarmed bombers had a max bomb load of 3,000 pounds. BAE Mosquito page
This is not true. That is an often misquoted fact. The B-17 had a much larger bomb load when considering it's external bomb bays, and still even could carry more in it's internals. The B-17 routinely carried 5,000-6,000 lbs of bombs on long range missions, where the bomb that's being referred to on the Mosquito, the Cookie, was only 4,000 lbs. Not to mention it was only a single bomb, not a bomb that would be used for carpet bombing or on a bombing raid. Also it is only partially correct that the Lancaster was considered for the atomic bombs. Yes, it was initially. But that was only a brief time, and the idea was quickly scratched. The slower speed and lower altitude of the Lancaster would potentially put the crew in serious danger of getting killed or at least damaged by the atomic bomb, and I think range was also an issue for the Lancaster here as well. They did not have a crew of Lancasters on standby to drop the bomb, as Mark Felton suggests. I like Mark Felton's videos, but he is dead wrong on that video with a lot of stuff he says, and it has called into question the accuracy of his other stuff for me. @Sizzler see Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles video on the Lancaster and the atomic bomb. He calls out Mark Felton for his bs in that video. Kinda made me sad, cause as I mentioned I like his other stuff, but now I don't know what to believe from him. Greg is definitely right in this case.
My mum's older cousin was a crew member of a Halifax he was killed on one of the last missions of the war only a few day before the crew was due to be sent home from the end of their service. They were targeted as they came into land by German nightfighters they all bar two perished when it crashed off the end of the runway one of whom died 2 days later from his injuries. His baby sister who was over 10 years his junior was distraught as he was her favourite as though he was older her always made time for her. She hated Harris for years as she felt she sacrificed her brother for nothing as the raid wasn't vital nor successful but held real contempt for the politicians she felt were cowards that refused for so long to honour the men who answered their call and gave their lives following their orders. One of the most bittersweet moments for her was finally being able to visit the memorial and see his name with his crewmates shortly before she died. She kept in touch with the last member of the crew through until he died in his 80s. His family who was with him when he passed told her that he looked to the corner where no one was standing before smiling and quietly saying him name and something else before closing his eyes for the last time.
If I could choose any bomber in WWII, it would be the Mosquito. But, given this specific choice, I think I would go with the B-17, due to its ability to absorb a lot of damage and it's defensive firepower. It would at least let me feel like I had a fighting chance... Great video!
i think both have their good and bad and different operational concepts so i personally don't think they are a good 'matchup' lancaster became a night bomber, B-17 a day bomber, the 17 was designed to operate as large groups with overlapping firepower for protection but this came at the cost of bomb load. hell even the mossie could carry more bombs. the lanc sacrificed defense for bomb load. so individually pound for pound the lanc wins due to its capacity to do more damage on its run, but relied on stealth. the 17 instead carries less for added survivability and was used in large and very large groups to carry the same load but during the day when fighters had a better chance of intercept and that massive firepower as needed. once the merlin mustangs (because the original american engined mustang was useless but when they married the merlin engine brit and american engineering produced a thing of beauty) came on line the need for such firepower was reduced as the long range fighters took over the defence role and the lanc comes into its own due to its larger payload.
Lancaster I think vastly superior…. Too many men on a B17. The guns almost never hit anything. B17 could only carry 6000 pounds of bombs at 200 knots. Lancaster 22,000 lbs at 280 knots.
@@gregorturner9421Not for nothing, but an Allison-powered P-51A would eat a Merlin-powered P-51B or D for breakfast below 15,000'. The only thing the V-1760 lacked to equal the Merlin above 15,000 was the two-speed two-stage supercharger. American manufactures refused to develop one before the Merlin took over because the Navy was their primary customer, and Grumman didn't want or need a plane to operate above 15,000.
Since I am a Yank and my Paternal Grandfather was a Co-Pilot for B-17 bombers during WWII my vote is for the Flying Fortress. R.I.P. William B. Nelson 1921-1998
I’m Scottish, loved the old movies. Respect to all who served. I reckon the ball bearing factory raid and the oil field raid are two that our yank cousins need a special thank you for. They young men did a great job no matter which bomber they flew. Lest we forget.
You really cannot compare the B-25, a medium bomber, with the others.The infamous Norden sight, fitted to a wide range of American bombers, was no better or worse than equivalents in the UK and Germany. Its reputation was based on Norden's own publicity which kept it in production when there were far cheaper, equally effective alternatives available, notably from Sperry. That 1200 ft CEP meant that Norden-equipped B-17s managed to get just 16% of their bombs within 400 yards of their aim point. Another issue is the US policy where only formation leaders actually aimed their bombs - other aircraft simply released when they saw their leader do so! But yes, obviously bombing was far easier during daylight than at night. Your comments about range are simply untrue: in fact, the 8th AF assigned really long range missions exclusively to B-24 units. You have to bear in mind that the Fortress was a much earlier design (six years was forever in aircraft design terms at the time). British fighters, by the way, began to be equipped with Hispanos from 1940. Only B-17Gs had anything like 13 0.50 cals: earlier models had fewer weapons, some of which were 0.30 cals. Not all the guns could be manned at once, of course. A downed B-17 meant the loss of ten young men, which must be taken into account. The Lancaster had two drawbacks: the lack of a ventral turret (there was one originally, but it used a periscope and was a complete waste of space), and the difficulty of bailing out for the pilots and bomb aimer - the result of that enormous bomb bay. Halifax crews had a significantly higher chance of escape. The 8.8 cm Flak guns (18, 36, 37 and 41) were all designed from the outset as anti-aircraft weapons: none were based on field artillery pieces.
The origins of the B17 always meant that it would have more range - It was designed for a specification in the Pacific theatre where you had much more sea and less land so any aircraft operating off runway strips rather than aircraft carriers had to have the legs to get to the target and back. With the Lancaster being designed for European operations, targets were closer, meaning you could sacrifice a longer range for extra payload
At 1800 feet it (Norden Sight) not only missed its pickle barrel, i.e the beach it was supposed to crater tom create shelter , for those incredibly brave men who were storming the us beaches on D Day, the average miss according to a post war USAAC investigation was 15 mile how close they got to the Beaches I dont know, but they sure beat the U,S Navy's D DAY rocket ships (we've all seen them firing a the Normandy beaches, the aim was to do the same as the U.S.A.AC,HOWEVER, they were told they had to be at a minimum 2 miles from their target, the beach in order to crater it from sea lineto the dunes, well the beach master master who was a ROYAL Marine Commandotold the documentary maker he shot up and down the incoming USN boats calling them cowards on his modified loud hailer as they were firing their entire loads of rockets 3 miles out, with the result that a rocket with a range of at best 2 miles never hit the beaches. So the U.S Navy holds 1 record for missing the target with literally thousands of rocket and a second for at extreeme close range having missed the continent of Europe completely! these are both well documented by both US and UK forces in after action reports into why there were so many casualities, when the planners had taken such pains to get it right, dont take my word check it out for yourselves.
@@cliffdixon6422 The B-17 was also expected to sacrifice range of bomb load too. P.13/36 was for 'world-wide use' not just Europe, and a maximum range (albeit with catapult-assisted launching) of 3000 miles. The Halifax was redesigned pretty early to use four engines, and with a 3000 mile range without catapult launching. The B-17s design maximum range was 3750 miles, albeit with a light armament. As armament increased, more wing tankage was added, but it was fighting a bit of a losing battle over range. However, in 1943 a Lancaster with at most 10 303s would have been dog meat in the skies in daylight. Where the B-17 excelled was altitude performance due to turbocharging. The Lancaster VI had Merlins better optimised for high-altitude but only about a dozen were built so I suppose it wasn't really seen as much of a priority. The B-17 did well, though, on what were rather less powerful engines which suggests it was a lower drag design, which is impressive given the lack of tools for designing such things back then.
@@peterforden5917 I'm sorry, I missed the clip on the U.S. Navy at D-Day, I'll have to watch this video again, you can have another spot of tea on the beach while we're, I mean I'm TCB.👌Nob
I’m American and I’d have to say Lancaster. The Merlin’s, twin tail, greater payload, and more versatile bomb bay put the Lancaster ahead. The US took daylight raids both for bomb accuracy and cause the night was busy with the British Lancasters. I think they might should of traded work shifts based on aircraft since the Lancaster was better. The US had a better bomb sight than the Norden (Norden was actually pretty terrible), but chose Norden cause the man selling it was a much better salesman.
Both great planes, the advantage the B17 had over the Lanc was its service ceiling, 35,000ft to the Lanc 21,000ft, that made the Lancaster more suitable to night missions whereas the B17 could be out of the range of most fighters except the Messerschmitt BF109.
I met Laurie Woods DFC once, he was just a little old man with a chest full of medals signing books in a quiet newsagents. Had a great chat to him and I offered to buy his book which he kindly signed. I was a student CPL pilot at the time and we had a great chat about all things planes. I read the book that week as was astonished at his exploits, he was a bomb aimer who TWICE had to take the controls from a pilot killed/wounded and land the plane back safely. I think he was with 425Sqn which was RAAF but like he said, it didn't really matter every squadron was a mixed bag of RAF, RAAF, RCAF, RNZAF etc
According to Dr mark felton, the Lancaster was the only plane at the time that was big enough to carry the atomic bombs until the b-29 was introduced in 1944
Since the US did not have any A bombs until July 1945 that hardly matters. Do you think the US was going to put the most top-secret weapon in a plane with one pilot? The Fat Man bomb would not fit in the bomb bay of a Lanc any more than the Grand Slam bomb.
Listen I love mfp but the whole lancaster was a serious consideration for the a bomb is not real. Not enough range, couldn't fit in the bombay, on and on plus records say the u.s. barely looked into it because the lanc bombay was not connected to the crew. They only armed fatty and boy moments before dropping them. Imagine a hot a bomb landing on tinian after a return landing from weather or mech problems?
I only came here to say that Mark Felton has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. If you enjoy his fictitious novels, then that says a lot about you and the facts you believe. That is all.
Due to a few things I would choose the B-17. Once the chin turret was added it became a formidable adversary but the 2 pilots and easier escape are the clinchers for me. The one thing I was amazed by, was the size of the B-17. Growing up, watching war movies of the 40s and 50s, I always imagined the plane as some large behemoth. In my 40s I finally had the pleasure to see one up close and realized just how small they really are. To fly for hours in it with your crewmates must have been an experience that I can never fully appreciate. True heroes.
You need twice as many pilots to be trained or replaced for a B17 and for half the payload, in terms of a war vehicle the Lanc was far more an effective machine
Lancaster for me. Those old movies really sum up the inventiveness of the designers and the bravery of the men who flew them. But the Flying Fortress is very close and just as brave. Great video.
Being an American I would have been a B-17 crewman. My grandfather fought in World War II with the Army Air corps and he was lucky enough to become a scout pilot and took the aftermath photos of the atomic bombs in the Pacific in a Piper Cub. A lot of his schoolmates went in to the 8th Air Force has Gunners and did not come home in his graduating class about 95% of the men died we are fortunate that we are here today because of the sacrifice of all the brave men and women of the past
It is not a like-for-like comparison, as the two aircraft were built and configured for different duties (night vs daytime ops). Both were historically great aircraft and crewed by unbelievably brave men who suffered terrible casualties while performing their duties.
@@davesherry5384 They _were_ configured for different missions. True, either could be configured to operate for day or night, but given that the British settled on night bombing, and The USAAF settled on daylight bombing, Lancs and Forts were routinely configured to operate in each of their services' chosen missions. Given they operated in daylight most often, the Fortresses had to devote a lot more payload to defensive armament, with not only more defensive machine guns, but they were .50 calibers, as opposed to the .303 caliber machine guns on the Lancaster -- so more guns, and much heavier guns and ammunition, and extra machine gunners with their gear and oxygen bottles, etc. The B-17 did have a smaller bomb bay, and it didn't have the ability to be reconfigured for the variety of specialty payloads that the cavernous Lancaster bomb bay could accomodate. On the other hand, the B-17's bomb bay could be accessed by the crew in flight, so the bombs were not armed until they plane was near the target. The Lancaster's bombs had to be armed on the ground before takeoff. That could be a problem if there was any kind of issue that required the plane to scrub the mission and turn around. You didn't want to land with a full load of armed bombs, especially if you were landing because of mechanical trouble, so typically you'd want to dump the bomb load -- could be a real problem though if you were still over friendly territory. Each bomber had originally been designed around different mission profiles, and then in service was adapted by their respective services for the missions they actually ended up serving. As a result, they don't compare exactly to each other, and I don't think either would have performed the other's role as well as they did the missions they were actually used for.
@@Hibernicus1968 "configured for different Missions", "different mission profiles". You got the jargon off pat at least. Shame it's a load of rubbish. The missions were the same - to bomb Germnay by day and by night and both bombers did both. Yep, the Lanc had .50 machines guns and even 20mm cannon too. Yep the lanc had a belly turret too later was replaced by a H2S blister. Yep the Lanc was far more flexible than the B17 both in missions and weapons load and weapons mix. It carried out numerous daylight bombing missions including the famous Tirpitz and Bielefeld Viaduct among many other missions using tall boy and grand slam inlcuindg in poland frnace, Norway and of course Germany. Unfortunately, your commentray regarding arming the Lancater's bombload is quite incorrect. The bombs were generally armed in flight (not aall bombs needed to be armed at all) "There would be an arming wire run from each fuse and this was attached to the aircraft. When the bombs were released the arming wires were pulled out and the fuses then started to arm themselves by the small propellors on each fuse. The bombs had to fall a specified distance before they were armed. This then allowed the aircraft to dump the bombs on takeoff, should they lose an engine, without destroying friendly folks and potentially themselves. Of course, it was SOP for Tall boy/grand slam bombs to be returned to base in the evnt of anon drop due to their expense so yes, they often landed with bmbloads on. And the B17 was in a similar situation. "In the B-17, and probably the B-24, it would have been possible to unhook the arming wires from the bomb racks and bend the part of the wire that was fed through the fuses so that it could not fall out and then dump the arming wires with the bombs. That way the propellors would not spin and the fuses would not arm. You would have to be quite agile in order to reach all the four bomb racks and it would not be a pleasant exercise!" In the 8th Air Force the bombs were loaded with two 48" long (or so) lengths of wire connected to a ring in the middle. The ring was hooked onto the bomb rack. When the aircraft landed the bomb bay was a tangled mess or arming wires, all of which were disposed of. " So the idea that arming and disarming B17s in flight was also a fallacy according to veteren B17 crews. Unfortunetley, your commentary is quite inaccurate in all respects so i give you a "D. Poor effort. Could do better"
@@davesherry5384 I'm going by Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles. He researches his videos very thoroughly, and cites his sources, and I certainly trust him more than an ill-mannered blowhard.
I got to go inside a B-17 at the Evergreen Air Museum in Oregon. It was an honor. It was much smaller than I expected. I would like to fly in either but I am happy that I never had to do a mission in either since it was a near death sentence.
I would take the Mosquito.. Oh. That's not a choice but it go way faster, higher and carry a slightly larger bombload than the B17. I would chose the B17 out of the memory of my father who was a navigator/top Turret Gunner on a B17 and won an Air Medal with clusters
Love your footage from Aces High!! In the game, the Lancaster is the top bomber due to its higher speed, higher altitude, and bomb load. The only draw back is the lack of defensive weapons.
@@saparotrob7888 Average European cloud base is between 6,500 feet and 15,000 feet , mostly cant see the target bombing visually at 32000ft, (some US bombers in the dresden raid hit Prague, ) B-17's traded range and warload assembling and getting up to height
good observation about the wingspar, that among other things, apparently, led to a much lower survival rate among air crews in lancasters when compared to 17s. The 17s were favored among american crewmen over 24's too, which had a tendency to either catch on fire or have their wings fall off, I cant remember which. I'd also never considered the implications of trying to escape at night, that was a cool point. I had the chance to see the lancaster up close when i visited london a couple of years ago - as far as looks and impression it was the clear winner over the 17, in my opinion, although I think i'd fly in the 17 if I had the choice. Good video, I really enjoyed it! I really liked the p51 jab about the us not being a thing without the brits, which is true, but it always makes me giggle when it gets brought up
The Lancaster for sure. 4000-5000 lbs of bombs carried by B-17s and B-24s on an average mission was an unusually light load for what were supposed to be heavy bombers. The Vickers Wellington routinely carried much heavier bomb loads than that and it was considered a medium bomber.
@@crabby7668 DH98 Mosquito FB. Mk VI 2,305 built. Fighter bomber / intruder variant using Merlin 22, 23 or 25. 4 (Browning) machine guns and 4 (Hispano) cannons, plus 2 x 250 lb bombs carried internally & underwing carriage of up to 2 x 500 lb bombs. Could be fitted with underwing rocket projectiles or drop tanks instead of external bomb carriage. BAE Mosquito page
@@crabby7668 DH98 Mosquito B. Mk IX 54 built 1,680 hp Merlin 72 engines - otherwise as B. Mk IV. 54 built. Could carry 2,000 lb internally, plus one 500 lb bomb or a drop tank under each wing. Some modified with bulged bomb bay doors for 4,000 lb bomb. BAE Mosquito page
The Lanc, not just because I'm British, it's also because my Grandfather worked on them. He was RAF groundcrew in WW2. Also, one of the only times I remember my father and I actually cooperating on a project was building a Dambusters themed scale model, which unfortunately disappeared years ago....
I'd take the B-17, due to the tight formation tactics they used. In the Lancaster, you were flying "single charlie", but still, the Lancaster was an amazing plane. Both bombers were great and they were both flown by great men, on some amazing missions. Thank you for all the hard work. Peace
It's worth looking up the daylight Lancaster formations very common from mid-1944 onwards. A large 'gaggle' with no real formation, but a certain distance between each plane, corresponding to the lethal range of the defensive weapons used (.303 and .50cal MGs by then). It was a compressed version of the night 'bomber stream' method already used, but with more visibility, and usually compressed in time (front to rear of formation) as well. The B-17s stacked and high and low formations could (it was a pre-WWII theory) defend each other, getting more gunners onto any attacking fighter.
@@stevetheduck1425 I just checked out RAF Bomber Command Operational Film No 249 daylight attack on München-Gladbach 27 December 1944. They were pretty loosey goosey but the footage is pretty amazing. Yeah, I don't know if those B-17 formations were any better, but it seemed to give the crews some peace of mind.
I read a book on the WWII German Fighter Defense based on actual pilot anecdotes. Given a choice with late war daylight raids -they would rather attack the Lancasters.
@@bentighe4811 Its a great pity the early war bombers are often forgotten along with their crews, Whitleys, Hampdens, Blenheims Wellingtons and the like, and lets not forget Coastal Commands , aircraft all the Shorts aircraft and even faithfull Annie, the Avro Anson not forgetting the various De Havilland biplane aircraft that were given bomb racks for an invasion that never came, even Glosters immortal gladiators did their bit for King and Country, too many fine planes and crews forgotten :(
🧥 Have you always wanted a distinctive and authentic leather flying jacket? Check out the fantastic range from Legendary USA here: calibanrising.com/flying-jacket/
Having seen the Lancaster "G for George" at the Australian War Memorial museum in Canberra, I can say that I have a much more "romantic" view of the famous English bomber. On a side note, I have a fun fact about Charles Bronson:
Born to a Lithuanian-American coal mining family in rural Pennsylvania, Bronson served in the United States Army Air Forces as a bomber tail gunner during World War II.
You like the Lancaster because you probably had one from Airfix on your shelf..painted pilots and all. (I did)
Soooo, the B-17... but as an Englishman there is a precisely zero percent chance that you'll ever say such a thing out loud then?😂
@@mikefraser4513 I had both the Lanc and the Fortress as a boy in the early 70s,the Lanc I'm sure was G George,the Fortress nose decal was Joltin Josie or a Bit of Lace.
@@ianmedford4855 yes as a Brit I definitely preferred the Fortress as a lad they always looked more glamorous especially the daylight bombers of the 8th air force,silver with all the nose paint jobs,now I'm 66 I still prefer the b17 because I think it had more chance of getting you home with battle damage,it could take more of a beating than the Lanc but each of these bombers were wonderful,the film The Dambusters is so evocative of the time and hearing those 4 merlins roaring so yes the Lanc was wonderful in its own way.
My father flew 32 missions in Lancasters with RAF 101 Spec Opps in 1943/44, the highest fatality squadron in the RAF during the war, his was one of only two intact crews that completed their 30 missions. After his tour he could have gone home to Australia but he volunteered for Military Inteligence and flew classified missions in Beaufighters until July 1945. He died in 2019 aged 97.
God bless him,and lived to 97,my respect to the AUSSIES and Kiwis and other nations,remember the Polish 303 sqd,boy those Guy were good,im a pommie but well done all of you,my dad was in the desert war and Italy,apparently i was conceived on a beach in Naples
Thank you for your father's service
R.I.P.
My uncle James was a pilot, didn't return from Hanover on his 6th mission 😢
101 sq specifically carried out radar-jamming operations on enemy fighters - it was initially successful until the Germans found out about it and devised equipment which could detect where the signal was coming from - which was, of course, a big, fat Lancaster - whose crew may have thought themselves immune from attack.
I live in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. We have a Lancaster. Flies over all the time, sounds like victory. Lest we forget.
The Mynarski Lanc. Had the pleasure of seeing it fly at the Hamilton Airshow one year.
Sadly a lot of people don't realize how much canada also used these planes we loved them and produced a lot of them as well, I mean hell almost every air cadet squad had used lancaster as a flight name multiple times and it's a legend in Canadian aviation I would rather fly that anytime
Hearing one Merlin engine is awesome much less 4.
Fantastic, you made me happy, My cousin trained in Banff, he was with 625 sqdn, canadians in the crew, (later on) and was killed on 1/7/1944 in his Lancaster. I won't forget .I still have his photos of Banff, he said that he would return there to live after the War.
@@mrvlsmrv Lanc crew likened them to a symphony!
My father (Canadian) flew with RAF Bomber Command as a Lancaster Navigator. In 1968 I was a small child and we went camping in Ontario. The campsite next to us was occupied by an American family and their dad flew B-17's. My dad, never ever talked about the war, but he was so very gobsmacked and honoured to meet this new American friend...he praised him openly and made sure I knew just how BRAVE this man had been to fly in broad daylight over Nazi Germany...he was just in awe of that mans courage and selflessness. They traded some mementos (my dad gave him a poppy that he had in the car) and I will never forget the admiration they had for each other. I will remember!
Ditto on the dad thing Joey. My pop was a 'Wireless Air Gunner/Navigator' aboard a Lancaster and he always raved about the bravery of 'those Americans' who flew daylight raids into Germany while he was flying similar distances at night dodging flak and night fighters. The difference between your dad and mine is that for whatever reason he opened up about what happened. I guess it was good therapy. Mom told me that early on in their marriage she used to wake to dad's screaming and it was ALWAYS the same thing... "THEY'RE TRYING TO KILL ME!!!"
@@joeyahoo3902 Honor to you're father
The big things is: Many thanks to all the brave men who flew these planes from where ever!
Correct
@@dannywlm63 Yes mate, many, many brave men from all over the world made the ultimate sacrifice to save freedom and democracy 👍
Thank you, it's a shame this hasn't got more likes.
Absolutely, they all had balls that weighed so much they lowered the payloads of the bombers, like everything else about aircraft it's a trade off.
Amen bruh
My father was an RAF mechanic for most of the war, he flew planes but not officially. He was training to be a full pilot in 1945 then when the war ended and the RAF no longer had any interest in new pilots. He bought himself out of the RAF (costing him much of his savings), and on his last day was told he must leave the air base by 12pm or he would be arrested. (Such a kind reward for all those years of faithful service).
Pretty much the same way people are treated when laid off in the USA. You get a file box to load your stuff, which is then inspected for "company property", then security "perp walks" you out the front door.
And these management morons can't understand why they can't keep help, or find any to hire.
I'll say this for Gen Z. They are definitely not buying into the management BS we baby boomers were sold.
Answer me this.......if "hard work" is all it takes to get ahead, why aren't all of the undocumented workers in the US multi-millionaires?
Some traditions never change.
@bobjackson . Don't know why in this day and age anybody would lift a finger to perpetuate this lost country. All politicians fault since Blaire's new Leibour.
What a wonderful vid. Consider me subscribed! First, the disclaimer: I'm a Yank, and my great uncle flew 49 missions as co-pilot of the Axis Ass Ache with the 9th AF out of North Africa. 9th crews were expected to complete 50 missions at the time, but on the 49th, shot to hell over the target, the crew agreed that rather than risk the trip back across the Mediterranean in a severely damaged bomber, they would attempt a landing at a fighter base on Sardinia. A fighter strip is a tough call for a fort on its best day, and they came in hot with a number of systems not working. The gear collapsed, and she slid off the runway, being written off as a useful piece of ordnance. Final log entry reads, "Conducted emergency landing at Sardinia. Crew survived. Plane didn't."
I have great respect for the Lanc and its brave crews who went out to face the German defenses alone in the dark, but because I'm dedicated to keeping my mortal a$$ alive and well, I'd have to go with the Fort. My uncle, who retired after three wars as a major general and flew types from the P-36 to the Phantom II didn't talk about his service much, but he regarded the Fortress as a ship with an exceptional ability to bring you home, and the photos of battle-damaged B-17s that brought their crews back to fly another day are legend. Those pics and my uncle's experience inform my choice.
Regarding your other question, the only American "special" operation I can think of was the B-24s that hit Ploesti at treetop height. If I recall correctly, that didn't go too well. Anyway, "Axis Ass Ache" wasn't famous by any means, but if you Google the name, you can get some rudimentary information and a couple of pictures. My uncle is Lt. Holt in the crew photo. Thank you so much for this tribute to ALL the brave airmen who did their part to secure freedom. May they never be forgotten!
Thanks for watching Jack!
2 dedicated gun positions on the lanc ? Front, dorsal and tail ?
I hate to say it but basing your choice on the Forts that came home with battle damage is survivorship bias. What about all the B17s that didn't make it back. There were alot of them that didn't.
@@BlyatimirPootinUSAAF H/bomber losses 12 Aug 42 to 5 May 45 10152
RAF 1 Feb 41 to 25 Apr 45 7547
@@jacktattis exactly
I loved both planes as a kid, building models of both. Being American, I discovered the Fort first but as I read more about the war and discovered the Lanc, I became enamored with it as well.
I have to say, I have a love/hate relationship with the Lancaster. I was born and bred in the city of Lancaster, so I have a fondness for the Lancaster - but my uncle (one of my dad's older brothers) died over Holland as rear-gunner on a Lancaster. My dad didn't track him down until the late 1990s - he has a grave in the Netherlands, and finally got his name on the city of Lancaster's war memorial.
That is bittersweet indeed. I'm had he was finally memorialized in his home town.
Indeed, my wife's uncle was radio/gunner in a Lancaster with a predominately Canadian crew. Shot down in Belgium in 1944, we finally got to the grave in 2017. He now is also immortalised on the Lancaster War Memorial in Lincoln. Everyman a hero.
That’s the worst position you could possibly be in as the crew of a Lancaster, they were known as tail end charlies, they were infamous as the mortality rate was extremely high, if a Lancaster was going down and you were a tail gunner, good luck getting out of the turret and the aircraft in time.
What's his name Ken I'll have a look next time I'm around Dalton Sq
@@seafirefr.4751 I know mate,they couldn't even wear their chute it was that crammed.If they were going down, the rear gunner was expected to grab his parachute,strap it on ,then somehow revolve the turret enough to be able to drop out of the back!
Both amazing aircraft flown by courageous crews under the most trying circumstances.
yep well said
My wife's uncle was a nose gunner in a Wellington bomber throughout WW2. He was 17 when he joined up as the idea of flying excited him. He survived the war, but refused to get on an aircraft for the rest of his life, not even at a museum. He told me that joining the RAF voluntarily was the worst decision he ever made.
Think about how unbelievably lucky he was given the stats.
He could've been in the merchant marine stuck on Arctic convoys.
Fun fact: The Wellington bomber is another of Barnes Wallace's contributions to the war effort.
The Lanc had some great qualities for sure like bomb load, but in a combat situation I'd take a B-17G ANYDAY@@castleanthrax1833
I can't imagine how stressful that job must have been, you go up get shot at by flak, chased by fighters, absolutely freezing your arse off, then you get back to base to find maybe 30% of your colleagues are now dead/POWs(these figures did improve during the war, but equally some of the early raids suffered even worse casualties) you get a day off then do it again!
The mental fortitude to do that is magnificent, do you think you could do that!? I have grave doubts that I could. We all owe an enormous debt of gratitude to these people, truly heroic.
Great video! I visited the RAF museum long ago and was shocked at how big the Lancaster was, made the B-17 look tiny. (I was also surprised at how big a Ju-87 Stuka was.)
Being a Yank, I have a soft spot for the B-17, but also have huge respect the accomplishments of the Lancaster.
Thanks for watching!
I think that's how it is for most of us. We tend to "adore" the planes of our own nations, but they're definitely both incredible examples of bomber aircraft.
@castleanthrax1833 well said , and hero pilots and crew on both sides of the pond !
You aren't remembering it correctly. The B-17 is slightly larger than the Lanc. It is 6ft longer and has a 2ft longer wingspan. The Lancaster is taller, however.
@@anthonydaria8728 In the RAF museum an Avro Lincoln bomber is also presented. She is an enlarged Lancaster. It's very easy to confuse - I did it firstly.
We get used to thinking of these as vintage (even old-fashioned) aircraft, but remember that for some 18-year-old farm hand who might never have been on a train and gets called up and put in one of these it would be very much an awe-inspiring state-of-the-art wonder, the equivalent of getting into a space shuttle for us.
My granddad served as a radio operator and mid-gunner on Lancasters, plus Wellingtons, etc. Never spoke about the war, but after his death his log books showed he kept volunteering for missions after he’d completed his mandatory number of sorties. It was a coin toss whether he would return each time he flew. Difficult to imagine the bravery of these teenagers/early 20s flight crew 🥺
Just shows how bonding the experience of combat is on men. I learned only a few years ago that Donald Plesense was a Bomber Command veteran, I thought he probably felt he was playing himself in The Great Escape.
@@vcv6560Charles Bronson was a tail gunner.
bs
@@royfr8136 I guess you must come from a family of cowards.
Brave men particularly at night.
My maternal grandfather was a Lancaster pilot and air bomber in WWII, then worked for the next few decades for the RCAF. He passed away in 2017. Didn't talk much about his time, but he never regretted bombing "those bastards". Different world, indeed.
As a Son of a retired RAAF Member and Veteran my Father spent 5 years in Malaysia during the Malaysian conflict serving for over 20 years, In 1978 upon his retirement as a senior NCO in charge of Training My Father lived and breathed the RAAF even after retiring...I always said if not due to family reasons Dad would of had to of been kicked out of the RAAF he loved it until the day he Passed...RIP Dad and to all the Men that have served and sacrificed
My dad as well, 1942-46 in the Pacific.
Lancaster!
I read 3 books written by an Australian Lancaster crew member who flew in Bomber Command.
As you said there was little recognition given to the crew of Bomber Command and he was trying to raise awareness through his books.
The Australians found it particularly tough because the Australian public felt they had been abandoned by them during the Pacific war, and some of them were even sent white feathers!
Back to why I would like to fly on a Lancaster, according to the author Laurie Woods, the Lancaster was just as strong as the B17.
One Lanc went into an almost uncontrollable dive
after being hit by flak.
They said the airspeed indicator went off the ’chart’!
The pilot had to get two other crew members to help him pull the stick back and they recovered.
Could you imagine the stresses on the airframe?
Another Lanc was returning from a raid and knew that flak along the Dutch coast would be particularly heavy, so they flew very low to escape the radar.
Suddenly there was an almighty bang, but they were able to keep flying.
When they returned to base there was a twelve inch rip in one of the wings, like someone had taken a buzz saw to it!!!
They think they probably flew into a barrage balloon cable! Not too many planes would survive that.
Another point about the Lancaster was that, unloaded, they had the same power/weight ratio of a Spitfire and often after unloading their bomb load, they were able to outfly the night fighters using a corkscrew manoeuvre.
The attrition rate of 53% the video says doesn't tell you that there was an average 45% _death_ rate over the war, 84% during '43 to '44, for Bomber Command. How stupid were the people sending white feathers to men who knew they were as likely as not to make it home after just 30 flights simply because they were risking their lives in a different part of the world.
Both my grandfathers fought in WW2, one was amongst the few Lancaster pilots who completed his required operations and would go on to train pilots as well as fly glider missions. And the other trained in Signals and was an Aussie coast-watcher in the Pacific theatre. The pilot married a pretty young English woman after the war and brought her home to raise a family, and never spoke of the war other than a few rare occasions. One of those occasions was when he gave me a model lancaster kit for christmas, and took me aside to tell me how he used to fly one. But none of us really knew his full role in the war until his funeral where both the RAF and RAAF sent acknowledgements of his extensive service, much to the family's surprise.
The other, despite his service, has never been acknowledged by the RSL as a returned serviceman because he never saw combat in theatre.. Even though avoiding combat was specifically part of his mission brief. Regardless of this, they still pick him up and plonk him on the back of a jeep every year for the ANZAC parade. He's 96 now, and all but completely deaf, no doubt in some part due to those years of monitoring heavy static. And boy does he have some cool war stories. :)
@@M3rVsT4H I knew a guy not far from me who fought with Z force in Borneo.
For those guys their reunions were a bit like a jigsaw puzzle since they mostly operated alone in small groups.
We have the RAF veterans and Bee Gee Robin Gibb who spearheaded the crusade for the Bomber Command Memorial dedicated in Green Park London in 2012.
Any plane than can carry a 22000lb bomb has to be tough
Rolls Royce engines!
A Lancaster would frequently fly directly over my office in a previous job I had, and every time I heard the Rolls Royce hum coming towards me, it was bliss.
I once met a guy who'd flown 7 missions as tail gunner in G for George, which is on display in the Australian war memorial.
Crewmen often compared the combined sound of the four Merlins to a symphony!!!
xcrockery FYI PACKARD in the USA built 55,525 Merlins in WW II and ALL 400 of the Canadian built Lancasters used the PACKARD Built MERLIN, not the RR built version, and yes they were different, also 1500 Mosquitos and 1200 Hurrycanes built in Canada used the PACKARD built Merlins !!!
@@wilburfinnigan2142 Aww! it's big mouth Wilbur, I thought you were dead? anyway, you built Merlins, you did NOT invent them!, and you built them to BRITISH specifications, and the only reason for that, is Britain were getting bombed, you Yanks were not! PMSL🧐🤓
@@sprinter1832 He's spamming the comments. Just report him for spam.
I used to work next to an airport. One week there was a very special guest there, a B-17G flying daily in the Hillsboro Air Show. One beautiful day I heard the most glorious noise I'd ever heard from an engine as the building started to shake. When I ran outside, I watched that Fortress flying away. It had just taken off. The pilot put it on its wingtip after liftoff to regal our humble business with the sound of four synchronized radials at takeoff power...
Simply AWESOME!!!
Irrespective of which aircraft, anyone that flew in these bombers were/are bloody hero’s. Everlasting respect and appreciation ❤
I'm just old enough to have known many WWII vets, I feel proud of all of them no matter what country they fought for, It's beyond me how the air crews of both British and American could get into the flying death boxes day after day knowing the odds were against you. My great uncle was shot down over Germany and was a POW till the end of the war.
Czechs, Poles, Kiwis, Aussies, Canadians, South Africans & others from many nations flew against the Axis.
I had a Great Uncle who was part of a Lancaster crew shot down over Holland returning from a raid on Germany. He was helped by the Dutch Resistance and remained in Holland until it was liberated by the Allies.
My friend’s father was on a Lanc. He was shot down and captured. The stories he had about his interment, being liberated by the Soviets, and his adventures avoiding those Soviets to get back to allied lines were incredible.
@Bani COURAGE, is being scared to perform your duties, but doing it anyways.
American and British ? May I remind you that out of the 55 000 bomber command men killed 4000 were australian and 10 000 were canadian, not to mention the New Zealanders, South Africans free Dutch, Belgians,Poles,Czechs,Danes, Norwegians.....Only an American could write American and British.
Since I was 10 years old, I have loved WW2 aircraft. Back then in the 1970s a lot of boys made model airplanes and there were 'Battle' and 'War' comics as well as WW2 movies. For some reason I retained my love of these aircraft even though it seemed like all my peers had lost interest in them as they got older. When I was 17, I was able to travel to the UK (from Adelaide, Australia) and visit London. While my mum and sister went to see Harrods, I took the advantage to get a train out of London and get to the RAF Museum. Finally, I got to see the fighters and bombers that I had so loved. This was and still is the pinnacle of my life. I had arrived.
I always preferred the "Commando" comics myself. They had thicker spines and an overall, more premium quality feel to them, yet were slightly cheaper than the "Battle" and "War" comics. When you're a poor kid with minimal pocket money, the choice was obvious.
yeah i grew up on things like a bridge to far and 633 sqn which cemented my love of the mossie. so when they posted the restored mossies second flight on go pro with no music it was magic to see the pilots view.
My Uncle Joe was a tail gunner in a B24 Liberator. His plane was severely damaged by flak on a bombing run over Germany and crashed when he returned to England. He did not survive, I don’t know if he was already dead when they crashed or not. It’s beyond my imagination what any of these crew men an airman suffered during World War II. Both B-17 and the Lancaster were crazy good machines piloted and manned by brave individuals. Hard to choose which one is better as they both did such a different things. Thankful for those sacrifices that were made and glad that it’s something I don’t have to do. Thanks for the great video I’ve been in love with all World War II planes for 63 years.
For me it has to be the Lancaster every time. So versatile and adaptable. What a kite! One thing you might like to revise is showing Wing Commander Guy Gibson VC as if he were still commanding 617 squadron in 1944. He left 617 squadron almost immediately after the dams raid and went on a goodwill tour to the States, then would not return to flying duties until 1944. He was tragically killed in action in a de Havilland Mosquito in 1944 being shot down over and crashing in Holland
Yes the Lancaster is a great bomber, world class, a beast of a bomber, legendary in every way, both aircraft were beautiful but deadly, the only thing I can say is it's defensive armament was not the same as the B-17, but at the end of the day the Lancaster was a better all around bomber pound for pound,.
Every time, really? And what if the target was out of range for a Lancaster? Send the Americans, I guess. Funny!
@@johnadair6108ure but send over twice as many planes and about three times as many crew to achieve that task and drop those bombs from above 30,000 feet and miss far too many of your targets. And just fyi I have 2nd World War, Malaysian Emergency, Vietnam War and far more recent RAAF heritage in my family.
The most awful thing about Guy Gibson is that he was tragically shot down by friendly fire.
@@johnadair6108 During the Battle for El Alamein Lancasters flew 936 double crossing of the Alps bombing Luftwaffe airfields in Italy .
Lancaster Range1660miles with 14000lbs Less load more range
Not many times where the RAF asked for USAAF aid in bombing
My maternal grandfather was a tail gunner in a Lancaster, he passed in 2008 but he had some stories! Great video, thanks
The bravest of the brave, may he RIP.
B-17 vs Lancaster - Crew members were more likely to survive a crash landing in a B-17. I think the same goes for water ditching. B-17s that belly landed at an airfield were sometimes put back into flight condition. Photos of RAF crashes are not as common as USAAF photos and I don't think I've ever seen an intact crash landed Lancaster. As for escaping a damaged plane, the bomb bay of a B-17 was used (Supposedly the doors were spring loaded to open with 200 lbs pressure) and there were three exit hatches (Plus the waist windows) the Lancaster had two hatches and I guess the nose one is considered a fatal flaw.
Another important consideration is daylight. Inside a pitch-black Lancaster fuselage scrambling to snap on your parachute, open and exit from the side fuselage hatch then hit the ground in your parachute in the dark - not knowing if you'll land in a lake or a pond, much less a tree... well...
In daylight, at least you could see what you and your fellow crewmen were doing (and find your chute) as well as see the ground coming up at you when floating down. Bailing out over the Channel was different in daylight vs night too.
My father was flight engineer with the Lancaster (RCAF 1944-1961) Bomber training and Search & Rescue post war. I was a young air force brat growing up at the time and so fond memories will interfere with any objective choice. These two aircraft had indeed differences but worked as a team to achieve an end to stupid wars. In any conflict team work is the key.
Thanks to your father for his service.
Well said , Sir . Your father was from a great generation, on both sides of the pond.
@@SISU889 Appreciate the reply.
Lanc as that is what called by so many Kiwi's flew in in WW2.
God Bless her QEII has moved on! Just watching this documentary reminds me of what a small country like New Zealand did to defend Britain and the Empire! God Bless her and God Save the King!
I think the Lanc was the best night time bomber and the B-17 was the best daytime bomber! the B-24 was the best all round bomber! Although the Halifax was also a great Bomber!
The British Short Stirling was even worse than the He 177. The He 177 was a serious aircraft, it just had a few flaws! The Stirling looked great but was a hunk of S! I learnt a great deal out of this, thank you!
Britain will always be grateful to our cousins of NZ/Australia/Canada/S Africa for their massive support in most wars.
@@peterstubbs5934 Thanks Peter, from Canada.
The Heinkel 177 Greif, would have been a greater success if fitted with four individual engines instead of placing one engine behind the other. This led to overheating and engine fires.
God rest her...God save the King!🍁⚔
God Bless the KIWIS!
@@peterstubbs5934 Cheers Peter from NZ. I had an uncle who flew for the RAF during the war. Did his training here at home. Dad still remembers Uncle Don in the kitchen at home in his uniform the day before he sailed for the UK.
My Uncle Don flew Hurricanes and P47's and survived. UK and US of course, so I don't have any bias. The Lanc and the B17 in fact had similar capacity, but one design favoured more and larger bombs, while the other favoured more guns, crew and armour. Both fantastic aircraft and both filled their roles well. I wouldn't care if the Allies took the fight to the Axis solely in Tiger Moths. If the craft does the job, it gets the thumbs up from me.
One other thing to mention are the bomber's durability. I don't know much about the Lancaster, but stories like ye olde pub show how insanely durable the b 17 is. The pub made it back with only one engine at full power, no rudder, half of a vertical stabilizer, a gaping hole in the side, and only one person was killed.
Worth reading the whole story of Franz Stigler and Charlie Brown in "A Higher Call " by Adam Makos
The Lanc wasn't very durable. First its engines (while good, same ones on the Spitfire) but just couldnt take a beating like the B-17 Pratts could. They were liquid cooled so one bullet in the radiator and that was it, the engine was done. Lancs also had the tendency to burn or explode when hit, roasting the crew.
@@mmarsh1972 The Lancaster was a death trap in an emergency. The less famous Halifaxes and Stirlings had a (slightly) better survival record.
@@stevekaczynski3793 Is it not funny that 3349 Lancs were lost from Apr 42 to April 45 and all Bomber command lost 8233 in 6 years While the hot shot USAAF LOST 10152 in 4 years So I would say that Bomber Command not only dropped more bombs but did not lose as many/year
@@jacktattis it's not apples to apples though.
The yanks & they're B17's were doing the majority of day light missions .
The De Havilland Mosquito in a slightly altered form, could carry 4000 pounds of bombs, at high speed, with two engines. It's astonishing to think that a huge B-24 could only carry a fraction more than that.
Given the choice, though, it would be a Lancaster every time. Endlessly adaptable, and incredibly strong. Accurate, too. Many raids by the US had tried to destroy the vital Bielefeld railway viaduct in Germany. In 1945, One 'Grand Slam' bomb was dropped, by a Lancaster of 617 (Special Duties) squadron, next to the viaduct, and destroyed a huge section, rendering it useless for the duration of the war.
100%, best bomber of the European Theatres.
How far could a Mosquito carry that load though? A B-24 could carry 5000lbs to Stuttgart or Frankfurt. It could carry 8000lbs to the low countries or northern France. The Mosquito was really cool, but there's probably a reason they didn't just build those.
@@420JackG Swift google shows that the radius of operation for a mosquito with 4000lb bomb was between 535 and 550 miles... they regularly bombed berlin with the 4000lb bomb..Also the typical cruising speed of the Mosquito was around 240mph with a max speed around 400mph (depending upon mark) , while the max speed of the liberator was around 290mph. There are stories of mosquito's doing 2 missions in one night. They also had the lowest loss rate of any bomber in WW2
@@420JackG a Mosquito could carry a 4,000lb bomb to Berlin. That same 4,000lb bomb wouldn't fit into a B-17 because the bomb bay was too small. (Source - Donald Bennett's war memoir, he was the founder and commander of the RAF Pathfinder Group) For specialist roles the Lancaster was superb but as a general purpose bomber the Mosquito beats it and the B-17 hands down.
DH98 Mosquito B. Mk IV
283 built
Night bomber using Merlin 21 or 23. Bulged bomb bay fitted to some to allow carriage of 4,000 lb bomb internally. Max speed 380 mph, max weight 21,462 lb.
Twenty seven built as B.Mk IV modified for PR role
BAE Mosquito page
Later Canadian-built Mk X Lancs were equipped with Martin dorsal turrets mounting twin .50s. At about 13:50 there's a glimpse of 'VeRA', the CWH Lanc, showing this arrangement.
Very thorough analysis, great job!
One important aspect overlooked is how each aircraft facilitated or hampered teamwork and moral of the crew...
For instance, it has often been mentioned that the Ju-88's clustered seating arrangement gave the crew the sense they were not alone in the vast sky. This sense that you were right there with your team gave a real sense of comfort when you're nerves started to create doubt in oneself.
I applaud both bombers, but if I had to choose, I think I'd go with either of them as the pros and cons are fairly equal overall. That's a hard call. They are both beautiful.
At an air show we had an opportunity to check out the interior of a B-17 and other bombers .
I was surprised how small the B-17 is, inside.
@Gilad Pellaeon I'll take a moment to mention the "bomber will always get through" mentality before the war, usually held up to derision by the ill-informed.
The truth is that in the mid to late 30s fighters weren't that fast, and had huge trouble intercepting the Forts. Thus the conviction that bombers were untouchable. This was before the Spitfire and Bf-109 took to the air.
After 1940 the (mostly) conventional wisdom that it would be impossible to design an escort fighter that had both the range to keep up with the bombers, yet still meet German fighters on even terms.
... One of the rarely examined features of the Mustang is that it actually enjoyed some extra thrust from the air leaving the belly scoop.
The synergy of the Merlin mated to the Mustang airframe was one of the miracles of the war. Just don't tell the Thunderbolt pilots. :)
📢 If you've enjoyed this video, Why not watch another one. Or even better, support this channel through Patreon, giving a virtual tip or making a usual purchase through one of my affiliate links (at no extra cost to you).
👍Find more details here: calibanrising.com/support/
I appreciate your help and together we can make this channel even better!
Wow all that sound gear , I can barely hear you , please speak up , at the very least check your sound levels after you recorded it , an listen to it Before you post ., eat a steak , have a cigar , it will help .,
@@reserva120 Thanks for the feedback.
8:28 that munitions is a royal navy bomb that the RAF weren't interested in but was used by the USAF to attack U-Boat pens and other hard targets it's got a hardened nose like the grand slam and has a rocket motor in the back to increase the speed used on U-boat pens it was devastating.
Well, Phil, it appears my first attempt to respond to your excellent video didn't get posted. So here's my answer to your question about which bomber I would prefer to serve in.
I have to prefer the B-17 for its:
-Superior defensive firepower and better visibility (as you observed), along with better arcs of fire.
-The very tough Wright Cyclone radial engines.
-Two pilots.
-The ability to be less hindered in getting out of a disabled plane.
Which was the better airplane? That depended on the mission requirements. Many tradeoffs were necessary in order to provide the optimum bombing capability against a given target. Fortunately, the two very different bombers provided most of those capabilities between them.
Thank you for an exceptionally well done video. Great portrayals of the two planes. Very objective comparisons.
My father in law trained as a pilot in both the B-17, and later the B-29.
I find it deplorable that Bomber Command personnel had to wait until most of them were passed before receiving their due tribute in 2012.
Eternal gratitude for all who served in the American and British bombing campaigns.
Thanks for the neat video, but the B-24's max Bomb load was 8000 pounds, the B-17 was 6000. Check with USAF records to verify this. Other then that small bit really good video.
My uncle flew 35 missions as a ball turret gunner when he was stationed at Great Ashfield in '44. One of his planes was shot down and he bailed over Belgium. They helped him get back to base 2 weeks later and he continued his career. His main plane, Li'l Audrey (42-32008) flew 111 missions with zero casualties and survived the war. He even claimed at least one enemy plane shot down. But he did catch a piece of flak in the sole of his boot, which he wrote "Made in Germany" on and kept as a souvenir. Also took part in the first daylight bombing raid over Berlin. It's mind-boggling that all these fellas were just kids.
Yes a really bad position They must have been in agony all the way.
Interesting. They both have their pros and cons. As an American, I'd fly in the Boeing, but simple out of tradition and respect for the guys that I know that flew them in the war. I remember all the arguments about air superiority regarding the 17s and the 24s. A friend of mine who flew a 17 said that if you survived in one or the other, that was your favorite. Made sense to me. A lot had to do with luck, as all of them were extremely dangerous to be in during combat.
The B24 Davis wing was fragile
My Father piloted both 17s and 24s on 39 missions with the 8th including two Schweinfort raids. He was awarded the DFC with clusters. He had great respect for Bomber Command and the Lancaster.
Thanks to your father for his service..
Tis a pity that the Eight had to fight the Luftwaffe and Bomber Command
Really enjoyed the build. Instant gratification for the viewer from start to finish presentation.
Thanks for watching Brian!
One thing the LAnc and B17 shared was a wing with 2 main spars. The B24 Liberator had a wing with only one main spar, and this adversely affected its ability to handle battle damage.
Yes, and the magnesium engine mounts.
Good point bringing up the cramped conditions. I remember being around 10 or 11 and going to an air show with my father and getting the chance to roam around inside a B-17. It was very tight even for a young child like myself.
One of the points I bring up humorously when talking about such things with friends is that being 6’3, I would have been fortunate enough to be too large for most naval postings and a lot of Air Force jobs, but would probably would have been the unfortunate first person in the infantry squad to die because I’d stick out!
Side note: We just recently in the past week had a local WWII veteran die. When reading his obituary it said he had been a survivor of 35 missions over Europe as a bombardier, spread between the B-24 and the B-17. He got his pilots license after the war and flew well into the 90’s.
I’m going to have to go with the B17, purely because I’m a Yank. Three of my grandmother’s brothers were in the USAAF, and I’m fortunate to have inherited one of my uncles B6 jacket. He had been a crew member in the 8th airforce.
Not sure the reason for the comparison. It’s more about the crews for these machines and I for one will be forever grateful for all the crews no matter their origins. Trying to conduct a contest between two allies makes little sense because both of the bombers were flown way outside their specifications during combat by their respective crews rather then die. Possible Death is a great incentive to force your equipment to do more then a spec sheet would indicate. Condolences for Elizabeth II she was a special lady.
Thank You from Great Britain - she certainly was. ...... A hard act to follow, but I am hopeful.
Great comparison, as much as I love the Lancaster and Halifax I think the book Lucky 666 really warms me to the B17 😊
As an American kid growing up in the 1980s, I was privileged enough to see several b17s fly over the years either at our local air show (in Smyrna, TN), or flying in or out of it. One came right over our house when I was about 12 or 13……coolest thing ever. When I was 22 I finally got to take an inside tour of a b17 on static display at the previously mentioned air show. I was really shocked to see how cramped the interior space was aboard the aircraft, especially given the massive outward appearance of the plane. Of course, that was in my summer attire and not full battle gear these brave lads had to wear on missions. I have seen the inside of a Lanc on TV only. I never had the honor of seeing one in real life. Those poor souls had a lot of courage to go do war in a cramped airplane that you can just about poke a hole in with an ink pen. Thanks for your video and god bless from North Carolina. Cheers!
This may come off as a diplomatic copout but I would choose either bomber based on the mission I would be, theoretically, tasks with. Firearms, fighters & bombers are all like tools: choose based on task at hand to maximize success. As you highlighted so thoroughly, each bomber had their strengths & weaknesses. Fortunately for humanity, we had both bombers on the right side of history.
Cheers
I met a Canadian airman once, who used to be a rear gunner in a Lanc. He said he was lucky because some of the other rear gunners in his squadron were basically hosed out of their station on arrival back home.
The 50 cal was a hell of a weapon, but the German fighters used 20, 30 even 37 mm explosive canon shells.. these did, very often tear a bomber both B17 and Lancaster to pieces, not to mention what they did to a human body...all, American, British and many from the Empire were brave to have to endure such attrition... An Uncle of mine flew a B24 (RAF) in the last years of WW2 on clandestine sorties dropping equipment and agents... he survived Flak and Night fighters only to die in a motorcycle accident in 1952.... he was 26 years old
A lot is made of the Mk 108 30 mm cannons used in the Me 262 but the thing people forget is they had a very thin point and housing. When they exploded it was like a large burst of air that ripped aircraft skin appart. It looked devastating but the internal structures often remained intact allowing the aircraft to return home. Add to that the Mk 108 had such a low muzzle velocity it was only effective to 500 yards while the Browning .50 cal was good up to 1700 yards. The earlier Mk 103 30 mm auto cannon used on earlier German fighters was much more deadly having a greater velocity and range. If I had to chose between the .50 cal and any of the cannons I would stick with the Brownings myself. Faster firing rate, longer range, more ammunition carried and simpler to service. All the cannons could be problematic.
B24 and B25, crews are often missed, along with crews of many forgotten airframes, that struggled in the era that was 1940-45, seems people have forgotten the patriot war for freedom,
@@jimdavison4077 Even the Hispano 20 mm ? After the RAF's go to firm (Martin Baker or Miles, I forget which) had sorted the bugs in the Le Chatterellaut belt feed of course. The debugged Hispano was so reliable that the RAF was able to save weight by deleting the in flight pneumatic cocking system and do the cocking on the ground prior to task off. Sadly when the RAF presented the schematics of the successful gun to the USA the NIH syndrome cut in and the US tried to improve on it! A sad story ensued, but let's not go there, and another reason the US stuck to 50 cal for wing mounted guns - allegedly. At least during WWI you could usually get at a gun breech in flight and clout it with a big hammer.
@@TheArgieH the 20 mm Hispano had issues right to the end of the war. Even into the jet era there were problems. The weapons systems were a lot more complicated than one would think. Even the machine guns on the Spitfires and Hurricanes had a complicated cooling system which cost the lives of.many RAF pilots who lost track of temps and their guns qould not fire. Then during early jet designs the gas from firing the guns would disrupt airflow into the engines and cause flameouts. The Hispanos had multiple issues on various aircraft. That said they were a good weapon providing extra punch that the standard 303 rounds early in the war.
@@jimdavison4077 Thank you. That's very interesting. Umm.... my book on aircraft armament goes into some detail on the Hispano, so I suppose the question as always is which Hispano - there were many Mks and it was quite different from the German equivalent which was actually Oerlikon based. The standard RAF gun had of course been modified to overcome recognised problems which the mods did successfully. As I mentioned, the in flight cocking systems were removed because they had become redundant. There were Hispano Spitfires in service as early as the BoB and they were indeed problematic. They were so bad that aircrew pleaded for their old Brownings back. The problem there was wing flexing that jammed the feeds. On gun temperature the principal problems were wing guns being too cold, so much so that warm air systems were introduced for high altitude interceptors, it gets really cold up there and icing was a real general hazard. Look also at the wing gun spacing at the time of the BoB. The Spitfire wing was so complicated (it was almost hand built) that the guns are spaced right across the wing in a 1 2 1 formation. Contrast that with the Hurricane which was regarded as a far steadier and better gun platform. Those red linen patches pasted over the muzzles are to inhibit icing up until the guns are warmed through by firing, as well as a simple foolproof indicator of gun status to ground crews. Moving on, the long barrel HV Hispano had a problem with accuracy because at high speed the leverage caused, you guessed it, flexing. This accounts for the short barrelled Hispano Mk Vs actually buried in the wings of the Sea Fury. The Meteor Nightfighters had a similar problem, the nose was taken up by the AI set, which necessitated moving the cannon out to mid wing. Again the long barrel leverage introduced problems and the wing flexing certainly didn't help, thus that problem came full circle - though more about hitting the target than jamming. I do not know of much serious problem with RAF Hispano muzzle blast, though flameouts were indeed a real problem with early jets, I know that the 30mm Aden and its relatives could be problematic. Finally my books on the Hurricane don't show any complicated cooling system for the Mk 1 with its Brownings, in fact I didn't see anything particular complicated looking over the Manston Mk II (it saw WWII service for real) with its standard Mk II fit of 4 x Hispano 20mm, though there were no barrel shrouds which might be factor.
The RAF always hankered after bigger guns. I am fond of the Zeppelin killer prototypes experimented with between the wars. The specification called for an oblique 37mm C.O.W., and I have a picture somewhere of an experimental war time Wellington fielding a special low profile turret for a 40mm gun (mid upper). I bet that had a slower R.O.F. than a Browning 303. Incidentally when pre-war the RAF was considering replacements for its dear old much respected Vickers Maxim, they wanted a far higher rate of fire iincrease the chances of a hit. Even pre-war, aircraft speeds were such that the combined speed of passing aircraft was up to 500 mph+. They tested the Browning, though it had to be modified to fire with an open bolt to avoid cook off of the heavy nitro content of the British 303, the Vickers K gun a.k.a. the Vickers GO and I believe a Lewis gun for comparison purposes. In any event, the Vickers GO won hands down, it was far more reliable, it had a R.O.F. of 1200 r.p.m., with a possibility of even more. The wee small snag was that it was fed by 50 and 100 round pans (some folk get confused between the Lewis and the Vicker K because both were pan fed (look for the indentations, that's a Lewis)). The RAF chose the modified Browning, imagine squeezing 8 x 100 round pans into that Spitfire wing. The Gladiator carried a Vickers K in a tray under each wing and a pair of Maxims under the cockpit , at least until they switched to Brownings. Surplus Vickers K ended up in SAS trucks and as anti aircraft mounts.
In regards to the Lanc and night missions, there were Lanc pathfinder units that would fly ahead of the main force to drop incendiary flares to light the target. I'm about the "stealth" the Lancs provide. My grandfather wad also a surviving tail gunner. I recall reading his log books and running into Me 262.
Wow, that must have been terrifying!
I too lived at Duxford late 50's early 60's it was then what was called a Moribund station back then, my dad was based at Stradishall , there was a bit of life in 1960 (I think) when Stradishall''s main runway was rebuilt and we had Gloster Meteor´s zooming around one of my favorite bases, Ternhill being the other :)
B-17 is my choice to fly in (but I love both aircraft!)
Reasons:
1. Radial engines are slightly less susceptible to damage.
2. .50 caliber defense guns.
3. Ball turret.
4. Two pilots.
5. Flew higher.
6. More escape options.
My Dad was in RCAF Lancaster's from 43 to the end (bombardier and 2nd Navigator) and my impression of his impression (he past in 2019) was that the training was different as well as the aircraft. My understanding was that Lancs would have two navigators per aircraft, while the B17 would not as they flew formation in daylight.
I watched the Memphis Belle with him and while watching the scene where the novice B17 crew crashes tragically on the runway he told me that would never happen. He said that the pilot brought the aircraft in alone after the crew would bail out over the aerodrome, which makes perfect sense. His ripcords from those jumps used to hang in the garage.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that bomber send up a flare beforehand indicating wounded on board? Seems pretty plausible then that there would still be crew onboard
According to Murray Peden in his classic account of being a bomber pilot with Bomber Command A Thousand Shall Fall, the dorsal turret on a night bomber was useless as the gunner could not detect fighters below him because the land below was so dark that you could not see a fighter's silhouette like you could if you were a tail or upper gunner. Also, a dorsal gunner who stared at the fires below was blinded for a considerable period of time.
I think you meant ventral gunner - rather than dorsal
The Lancaster ventral turret was aimed optically making it difficult to use at night and in low light. Only a few were ever fitted. There was no room for a ball turret because of the huge continuous bomb bay.
As to which I would have preferred to serve in I think I would go for the Lancaster. Although by percentage it had a higher casualty rate, that was partly effected by the length and amount of units in service in the earlier days. But the main reason I think is that at night the fear would have been less as you couldn't see all the fighters, or even the amount of flak (only seeing what was close and in front of your eyes) but in daylight more prone to see all the carnage around you. I am sure I would have been totally terrified, but less so at night where your vision was limited. Plus the Lancaster was far more maneuverable and better able to avoid trouble possibly.
My great grandfather was a Lancaster pilot in WW2. He wasn’t shot down however, the flight after he left his crew, his plane was shot down and all the crew were killed.
Wow, he dodged one hell of a bullet.
Something I don't know about, for the B17, is its survivability with engine loss...my friend's father told of flying his Lancaster 'home' for, I think, over two hours, one *ONE* mighty Merlin! Only 100 or so feet altitude, coming over the English coast, but just enough to get her down... So, interesting to hear what folks might have to relate about B17's engine capabilities?
Three engine returns were common place during the war. Two engine was possible if you didn't lose both engines on one side, that made trim and turns dicey. The two advantages of the fortress was air cooled engines and more guns The merlins were nice but suffered from the golden BB syndrome, one hole in the cooling system and the engine was done. One other nice feature was that once the props bent on a gear up landing the pilots could use the brakes for a few seconds.
Total bullshit. I'm sorry but there are loads of historians who have compared survivability between the Lancaster and the B17... and the B17 wins handily. When flown in comparable missions, the b17 was much more likely to return to base. Yes, daylight bombing was more dangerous than nightime bombing, and that is precisely why the myth of the Lancasters durability was born. But this is highly problematic, because the reason the British began nightime bombing was precisely BECAUSE of the low durability of their bombers. I.e. they tried daylight bombing, which was considerably more accurate, but the loss rate of British bombers was atrocious. Far higher than american bombers even. Thus the British switched to nightime bombing. Just a few things to consider - the b17 had radial engines - proven to be far more robust/tolerant to damange than water-cooled v12s. The b17 had far more armor for the pilot and co pilot. The b17 had nearly double the Lancasters defensive armament and in superieor/overlapping feilds of fire configuration. - the lancastesr bombs had to be armed BEFORE takeoff - which meant that they flew the entire mission with ARMED bombs. Yes, lancasters survived more missions - because they were nightime bombing - because their loss rate during daylight operation was completely unnacceptable - which led British command to adopt nightime bombing, which has been shown by many historians, including British ones, to have been highly innacurate - about ten times less accurate than daylight bombing. Truly. And yet these factors are never pointed out by Brits. I like the Lancaster, I truly do, but my god you Brits are so damn biased that you cannot even think critically about these machines or why they were used the way they were.
Thanks for the great content! I must admit I’m biased because my dad was a B17 flight engineer and top turret gunner but I’d prefer to crew in the B17. They were so durable and relatively well armed that I think my survival chances would be a little better than in the Lancaster - plus I think I’d be too tall to be the ball turret gunner. That might change my answer if I was shorter.
I agree with what somebody said earlier, if I had to be flying over Nazi Germany and could choose, it would be a Mosquito. The Lancaster is iconic for Brits and Canadians, and the B17 for our American cousins. Got to admit that the statistics for the B17 are more favourable for the crews. If they were shot down B17 crews had a better chance of getting out and surviving. I always preferred the idea of going in daylight as well, though it does seem crazy to do so. God bless all of them.
Halifax was excellent especially after the engine upgrade, meet a pilot with 37 sorties in a Halifax he loved it, I thanked him for his service what a cool dude! he thought the Lancaster was over rated do to very favorable reviews, he said Lancaster were very hard to bail out of when shot down.
This sort of loyalty to a particular aircraft is interesting. The Hurricane was often seen as second fiddle to the Spitfire, as was the HP Victor to the Avro Vulcan, post-war. One pilot whose bio I read flew both Lanc and Hali on operations and said the former was eager to leave the runway and reluctant to land, often floating for some time prior to touchdown, whereas the Hali took ages to get airborne and gave a sort of groan on landing, as if it were glad to be back on terra firma.
My Grandfather (Dad’s Dad) was a tailgunner in a Lancaster. He meet my grandmother who was a field nurse at his airfield. His squadron was part of Guy Gibsons, their aircraft never flew the Dambuster mission due to a bomb being ready but the spooling rig not. It's always fascinated me how the Lancaster was a single-pilot bomber but for both it and the B-17’s rolls in the bombing war over Europe I have to give ❤ to the men of bomber command for doing what needed to be done to turn the tide of the war
My late dad used to tell me of the times he and his friends as ten year old would cycle to prees heath airfield, in Shropshire, to watch the yanks coming back to land, after a bombing mission.
On occasions a flare would be fired upwards.
Some he said we're shot full of holes, some trailing smoke and some with bits of the tails missing.
They would watch as some skewed to a halt on one wheel only, screeching to a halt,
Then the fire Crews and ambulance Crews would race out.
They saw some on stretchers, others slumped on the ground,
And more still, jackets open, just standing.
Some times on their way to debrief, aboard trucks, they would throw gum and hershey bars over the fence,
And ask if my dad had any big sisters.
He remembered them as being generous, smiling, but most times their faces were dirty
But they never forgot the gum or hersey bars.
🇬🇧❤️🇺🇲
One of the most interesting things that would have been good to cover is the ability of the aircraft to absorb damage and return home. Of course the B17 was famous for that. Maybe the Lancaster was as well but I haven't seen the same level of comment about that capability. Given a choice I'd prefer the plane most likely to survive! :)
well the USAAF lost 10152 H /Bombers in WW2 in 33 months RAF Bomber Command lost 8400 in 67 months
@@jacktattis For the most part, the RAF wasn't flying in the Pacific.
@@Gearparadummies No they were up against more Japs in Burma The RAAF were there though
And the BPF was at the Philippines with the Seafires flying interception because of their superior Climb Rate
And it was a Seafire that flew the last offensive sorties over the home Islands
Gee you had to do something over in the west we had been beating the Luftwaffe since Oct 39
@@jacktattis You have to factor sorties The level of difficulty. The US had more planes to loose. The US did more dangerous day runs. Dont think thats a credible factor. Plus the Britts were always more cautious and took fewer risks
@@labla8940 So the raids to sink the Tirpitz by the Lancs were cautious one of the raids was 1600 miles The only raid the USAAF did that was its equal was the raid on Ploesti
2. The Amiens raid by the Mossies was cautious
3. The 936 Double crossing of the Alps by the Lancaster bombing Luftwaffe positions in Northern Italy to hold down the Luftwaffe from going to support the Germans at El Alamein was cautious
4.The long range attacks by day and night on the UBoats hundreds of miles out in the Atlantic was cautious
5. The 100s of missions by the Swordfish flying out of Malta sinking 50000 tons/ month of enemy shipping for 2 years in the Med was cautious
. My friend whatever your USAAF did it was pioneered by the RAF /FAA
Great video. One thing I saw elsewhere is the the cruising speed of the fort was about 280 empty, but decreased to 187 mph in order the ranges they needed to fly when fully loaded. The relative slowness of the B-17 was a huge concern compared to other bombers.
0:12 in 1981 age 5 at cosford, i was allowed into the cockpit of their mosquito sat in the pilot seat and moved the control surfaces and stick. omg it was the best experience i honestly have ever had 41 years later. i wish i could thank the guy who said "do you want a go inside"
The Lanc for payload . The Fort was half gunship half long range bomber . The evolution of the Manchester into the Lanc was fortunate , the original two engine layout being changed for a larger wing and four engines .
We can never forget these thousands of young men ,flying repeatedly and knowing the odds.
It hardly carried these loads in normal missions. Plus it had the issue of not being able to arm and disarm its payload in flight which is pretty bad when you lose an engine over friendly territory
If B-17 would be used like Lancaster in night time it could carry same bomb load.
@@topivaltanen4432Not even close.
@@owenshebbeare2999 Easily,only few guns to carry and less crew.Lower flying alttitude wouldnt need as much gasoline less weight could be replaced with bigger bomb load.
@@casematecardinal To be fair, it could disarm its weapons in flight. It's done via a solenoid that retains or releases an arming wire according to the position of a switch. Retain the arming wire and the fuse is armed when the bomb is released. Release the arming wire and it goes down with the bomb still in place preventing the fuse from arming. If you choose "jettison", the bombs won't arm. It's the same way all aircraft manage external stores, even to this day.
To make the comparison between the Fort and the Lanc, you need to put them on the same mission. Both during the day with comparable escort, or both at night. This would narrow the differences a lot. I wouldn't want to be in a Lanc in a daylight raid, its defensive armament is way too feeble. And a Fort an night without the need to burn tons of fuel organizing into formations would be able to carry quite a bit more in bomb load. Still, maybe not as much as a Lanc but appreciably more. And a Fort demonstrated its ability to bring crews home after enduring horrific damage has been proven beyond any doubt.
I used to live near Niagara Falls, Ontario. In the summer the Lancaster from the Hamilton Air Museum would fly over my house on its tourist flight. Loved that sound and I would rush out to watch it rumble past every chance I could. The museum flies the plane regularly and you can pay to get on a flight. All money going to the up keep of their fleet, which they also fly. So, for me its hands down the Lancaster. Spoke to my friends Uncle who was in the war, and lived a long life. Told him how much I loved the sound of that plane flying past. He looked at me and said "Imagine a hundred of them." Must have been incredible to see that.
B-17 all the way. Range and survivability the reason. My wife bought my Dad and me a ticket to ride in a B-17G. One of the highlights of my life.
What a wife!
There is nothing that sounds like a Lancaster! The noise alone seals it for me. I am just so glad that there will be more flying soon. Another being restored to flight worthy in England and one that Kermit Weeks has, however unknown when he will get to it, someone needs to fund that. That with the two currently flying would be magnificent. I would give anything i had to see four Lancaster's flying in formation. I was very excited to see 21 Spitfires flying in formation, and that was just on UA-cam. Nothing beats the glorious music of the Rolls Royce Merlin!
Well, four spits sound like a Lancaster… but, yes, what a glorious sound.
Rolls Royce
Just a couple of points that I have come across over the years, Schrage Music was known about by the heads of bomber command,the RFC had used a basic type to shoot down zeppelins, damage to the few bombers that managed to return after this attack proved this.
They apparently kept it quiet for morale reasons.
0.5 inch guns where not used by night bombers even though they had been requested because again argued by the powers that be that their greater range over the 0.303 was superfluous as night fighters where only visible to gunners at a range that would be compatible to the 0.303. How true all this is I dont know as its only stuff I have read/seen on line.
Avro Type 694 Lincoln Developed from the Avro Lancaster.
2x 0.5 in (12.70 mm) M2 Browning machine-guns nose turret[N 2]
2x 20 mm (0.787 in) Hispano MK.IV cannon or Hispano Mk.V cannon dorsal turret[N 3]
2x 0.5 in (12.70 mm) M2 Browning machine-guns tail turret[N 4]
(Some aircraft fitted with a single 0.5 in (12.70 mm) M2 Browning in a ventral position)
As a Canadian, I’m going to have to take the Lancaster. It carried over 2 times the bomb load of the B17. My mom also worked on their assembly in Milton, Canada.
On average Lanc's carried about 1/3 (2,000 lb) more than 17's.
Where did the engines in Mark III Lanc's (Dambusters) and Mark X (Canada) come from? Who paid for them?
I found some interesting information in a document that can be found by Searching;
Operational history of Lancaster 1B R5868
This Lanc flew 136 operational sorties in two years and ten months (less than one a week) and dropped "466 tons (assume long, ND) approx" or 3.42 long tons or 7,675 pounds on average. I did not deduct missions in which bombs were jettisoned due to engine failure or the entire load was flares or mission was called off in flight. I will leave that to someone dedicated to perpetuating the myth all Lanc's carried 14,000 pounds of bombs on every mission.
On pages one and two (July and August 1942) the entire load was 3,360 pounds of bombs.
On page one two raids were in daylight, the next daylight raid would be in July 44.
On page two a bomb load is 2,000 pounds plus "6 x 4 flares".
"(USA)" appears nine times with bomb type.
Some of the notes are interesting. Recommendation by two pilots the aircraft be withdrawn from bombing, one friendly fire incident, "bomb doors damaged by bombs" and one midair collision with another Lanc over the target.
I was amused by the listing of a USAAF general as "Passenger" (instead of observer) as if they were going to drop him off somewhere.
@@nickdanger3802 Damn sonebody else knows the truth. RAF figures throughout the war, total tons dropped divided by sorties flown averages less than 6,000# !!!!! Most people take what a lanc COULD CARRY as what it did and that is not true,,,,
As an American I'll open by saying one of my teen favorite aviation films was An Appointment in London (1951) when I finally found it on DVD I purchased a PAL copy from Ireland and used a computer to convert it to NTSC so I could watch on my television, about 2005. A PIII needing 30 hours to re-code 2hr of film. I have been to the RAF Museum London, seeing the planes from the outside and twice to the codebreakers school at Milton-Keynes.
I think of the Tirpitz and Moore-Eder-Slope Dam raids as highlights of the European theater air combat.
Now to your question: It would be the B-17. Why? Survivability, (as you started to mention @14 mins) in that the Boeing aircraft had three escape hatches compared to the single on the Lancaster. Furthermore on the lower turret position just think how many crew were lost not just to the blind spot, but the H2S blasting their position to the fighter waiting to play a little jazz solo on their fuel tanks.
And ...as being an American...it would have been predictable that you would go for the B17 ☺️ !
Appointment in London (1953) actually
@@davidfrost779 okay, np. I was going from memory.
Plenty of Brits on here voting for the Lancaster, but nobody is criticising them for being predictable. Why can't people just respect each other's opinions?
A good video. One point to note is that the photo on an RAF bomber with the damage to the upper fuselage is actually that of a Halifax that had been the recipient of some “friendly fire” from above in the shape of a bomb from another aircraft above it. Look at the tail fins. Not that anyone wants to talk about the Halifax, fine aircraft though it was….
"Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles" has a great video explaining why the B 17's altitude advantage is significant for reducing losses (especially from flak) in daylight raids. Also, these planes were vey rarely carrying max loads, or at max speed, or max altitude, or flying max ranges. (Yes, the Grand Slam was the max Lancaster load, but those were shorter-range missions.) IMO, the Lancaster was better for night, the Fortress better for day.
The attacks on Tirpitz were anything but short range missions
Fættenfjord is further away than Berlin from the UK
The Tirpitz raid flew from Russia towards home.
@@keithparkinson6170
Yes, Yagodnik USSR was used as refueling base AFTER the raid
This was during Paravene, when Tirpitz was too far north for the bombers to return to Scotland on maximum fuelload
Still doesn't make the attacks on Tirpitz Short range missions
How was the Lancaster better for night.
@@ShortArmOfGod short answer: lack of altitude wasn't as important at night. Better answer: See the Greg's video.
Yes I remember climbing into to the only, at that time, flying Lancaster as a child, and was surprised like you about the cramped conditions.
I often see the, now renamed, Phantom of the Ruhr passing over my house these days, sometimes accompanied with a spitfire or hurricane.
My grandfather told me he remembered seeing dozens of them during WW2, spiralling up to gain altitude, before heading off to France.
Lancaster's were also built in Toronto, Canada during WW11, one stands (flies), around thirty ft on a concrete plinth, on parkland just west of the city (walking) next to the old Exhibition Stadium where the Blue Jays (Baseball team), had their home before Skydome.
The Norden bombsight was developed and tested in a desert atmosphere where the air pressure and temperature is relatively uniform. This allowed for only minor winds at a higher altitude to affect the drift of the bomb when released. When they got to the Western European theatre they found themselves in a completely different mix of temperatures and winds at varying heights. All of which affected the bomb while it was in flight to target.
Compared to the conditions over Japan, the jet stream, European weather wasn't as bad.
Bombing accuracy was virtually non-existent... that's why LeMay switched to medium level raids, and firebombing tactics. He even said, " we better win this war or I'll be tried as a war criminal"
@@philgiglio7922 When they dropped the first atomic bomb they used the Norden bombsight and missed the aiming point by 800metres! This is ironic seeing that the Norden bombsight (named after him) was developed by a committed Christian on the basis that the more accurate bombing the less casualties there would be!
@@philgiglio7922
I can't comment generally on bombing raids over Japan.
But I did look at the photos of a bombing raid on ball bearing ? factories in Akishi.
The smoke was completely absent from residential part of the town,
but obliterated the industrial area just to the west.
Thank you for this video. Growing up in the States it was natural to be interested in the B-17. I come from an Air Force family even up to the present day. My son in law was stationed at Wright Patterson AFB in Ohio which is nearby to the home of the US Air Force Museum in Dayton so we went to visit. They not only had a B-17 in the hangar but also a cutaway of the hull showing the crew positions. bomb load and specs on performance. It took up to 9 guys to fly one mission and the bomb load seemed small, largely inaccurate and the casualties in '43 and '44 were staggering. Fair to say now I wouldn't want to fly either one! When I was growing up veterans including my dad were raising families and most weren't interested in talking to kids about the war. Years later I did get to interview a B-17 bombardier who led a raid deep into Germany and was shot down in 1944. i asked him, "What were you most afraid of?" He said without hesitation, "Not doing my job. It meant some other guys would have to go back and risk their life because I failed." I'd bet anything that a Lancaster man would say the same. Last note. I asked, "What did the plane smell like after flak hit and you'd been wounded?" As if it had happened that morning he said,
"Gasoline."
Lancaster without a doubt. I lived at Duxford for a year back in 1972/3 & visited the East Anglia Aeronautical Museum several times including when the Shackleton arrived from Kinloss where I had been stationed previously & watched it being rebuilt & a little later seeing a Spitfire brought over from Canada. My Wife & I had a tour around the Shackleton as her dad was one of the first aircrews to bring it into service & did a goodwill flight out to Canada before his demob in 1950/1. The guy who we spoke with was really impressed I had watched the Shack being rebuilt. We also attended the airday there that year which blew me away seeing all the aircraft I had read & heard about in my childhood. I also had been in the Air Cadets in the '60s so was right into aircraft. It was also a privilege to live on such a historic airbase & see a lot of the places where the Battle of Britain film had been made. I had seen the film on its release & have watched it several times since. Makes me feel at home
Lcaster.
I loved the B-17 and the Lancaster, as a boy growing up (I am 65 now). Both fulfilled their mission masterfully, but don't shortchange the B-24. It had some drawbacks, but was able to carry a larger bomb load, faster than a 17. It's design also allowed for easier production, many being produced at Ford Motor Co., on Henry Ford's assembly lines. Al 3 were marvelous at what they did, and saved the world when we needed them.
My grandfather is a navigator in a lancaster. Did 30 missions during 1942 to 1943. Did training in Lancasters for the rest of the war in Scotland. I think he was very lucky to get through those 30 missions. He was asked to do another 30 but he chose the training job. thanks for the information.
I was at Duxford for the 75th anniversary of D Day in 2019. I took a virtual flight on a Lancaster. My buddy Mike, who served in the USAF and later the U. S. Coast Guard was along with me. Neither of us could speak after that experience. Yes, the Lanc has my respect, but the crews, any crews, who served during WWII have my undying respect!!!! Yes, I saw the memorial to the bomber crews as well. I am not worthy!!! But for me, put me in a P-47. 😍
I’m a Thunderbolt guy too.
Fun facts:
1.) The RAF’s DeHavilland Mosquito (a rapid twin-engined multi-role aircraft made of wood with a crew of 2/3) could carry the same bomb load as the B-17.
2.) The Lancaster was considered for the nuclear raids on Japan as the USA didn’t have a bomber with a big enough payload capacity prior to the B-29 entering service.
I believe the b29 couldn't carry the atomic bomb due the the wing spar think it had two bomb bays and needed adapting see Mark Felton productions
Great facts, thanks
More like Fun Myths: Mossy fighter bombers, the most produced mark with a bomb bay, had a max bomb load of 1,500 pounds. Unmodified unarmed bombers had a max bomb load of 3,000 pounds.
BAE Mosquito page
@@sizzler2462
The Lancaster and Atomic Bombs, My Response to Mark Felton
ua-cam.com/video/gKB-oqdoduw/v-deo.html
This is not true. That is an often misquoted fact. The B-17 had a much larger bomb load when considering it's external bomb bays, and still even could carry more in it's internals. The B-17 routinely carried 5,000-6,000 lbs of bombs on long range missions, where the bomb that's being referred to on the Mosquito, the Cookie, was only 4,000 lbs. Not to mention it was only a single bomb, not a bomb that would be used for carpet bombing or on a bombing raid. Also it is only partially correct that the Lancaster was considered for the atomic bombs. Yes, it was initially. But that was only a brief time, and the idea was quickly scratched. The slower speed and lower altitude of the Lancaster would potentially put the crew in serious danger of getting killed or at least damaged by the atomic bomb, and I think range was also an issue for the Lancaster here as well. They did not have a crew of Lancasters on standby to drop the bomb, as Mark Felton suggests. I like Mark Felton's videos, but he is dead wrong on that video with a lot of stuff he says, and it has called into question the accuracy of his other stuff for me. @Sizzler see Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles video on the Lancaster and the atomic bomb. He calls out Mark Felton for his bs in that video. Kinda made me sad, cause as I mentioned I like his other stuff, but now I don't know what to believe from him. Greg is definitely right in this case.
My mum's older cousin was a crew member of a Halifax he was killed on one of the last missions of the war only a few day before the crew was due to be sent home from the end of their service. They were targeted as they came into land by German nightfighters they all bar two perished when it crashed off the end of the runway one of whom died 2 days later from his injuries. His baby sister who was over 10 years his junior was distraught as he was her favourite as though he was older her always made time for her. She hated Harris for years as she felt she sacrificed her brother for nothing as the raid wasn't vital nor successful but held real contempt for the politicians she felt were cowards that refused for so long to honour the men who answered their call and gave their lives following their orders. One of the most bittersweet moments for her was finally being able to visit the memorial and see his name with his crewmates shortly before she died.
She kept in touch with the last member of the crew through until he died in his 80s. His family who was with him when he passed told her that he looked to the corner where no one was standing before smiling and quietly saying him name and something else before closing his eyes for the last time.
If I could choose any bomber in WWII, it would be the Mosquito. But, given this specific choice, I think I would go with the B-17, due to its ability to absorb a lot of damage and it's defensive firepower. It would at least let me feel like I had a fighting chance... Great video!
It may have had good defensive armament, but that meant its primary role was lessened - dropping bombs - for that the Lancaster every time.
i think both have their good and bad and different operational concepts so i personally don't think they are a good 'matchup' lancaster became a night bomber, B-17 a day bomber, the 17 was designed to operate as large groups with overlapping firepower for protection but this came at the cost of bomb load. hell even the mossie could carry more bombs. the lanc sacrificed defense for bomb load. so individually pound for pound the lanc wins due to its capacity to do more damage on its run, but relied on stealth. the 17 instead carries less for added survivability and was used in large and very large groups to carry the same load but during the day when fighters had a better chance of intercept and that massive firepower as needed. once the merlin mustangs (because the original american engined mustang was useless but when they married the merlin engine brit and american engineering produced a thing of beauty) came on line the need for such firepower was reduced as the long range fighters took over the defence role and the lanc comes into its own due to its larger payload.
Lancaster I think vastly superior…. Too many men on a B17. The guns almost never hit anything. B17 could only carry 6000 pounds of bombs at 200 knots. Lancaster 22,000 lbs at 280 knots.
I agree, if you want to get home - and hit the target. it's a Mozzie every time.
@@gregorturner9421Not for nothing, but an Allison-powered P-51A would eat a Merlin-powered P-51B or D for breakfast below 15,000'. The only thing the V-1760 lacked to equal the Merlin above 15,000 was the two-speed two-stage supercharger. American manufactures refused to develop one before the Merlin took over because the Navy was their primary customer, and Grumman didn't want or need a plane to operate above 15,000.
Since I am a Yank and my Paternal Grandfather was a Co-Pilot for B-17 bombers during WWII my vote is for the Flying Fortress. R.I.P. William B. Nelson 1921-1998
I’m Scottish, loved the old movies. Respect to all who served. I reckon the ball bearing factory raid and the oil field raid are two that our yank cousins need a special thank you for. They young men did a great job no matter which bomber they flew. Lest we forget.
You really cannot compare the B-25, a medium bomber, with the others.The infamous Norden sight, fitted to a wide range of American bombers, was no better or worse than equivalents in the UK and Germany. Its reputation was based on Norden's own publicity which kept it in production when there were far cheaper, equally effective alternatives available, notably from Sperry. That 1200 ft CEP meant that Norden-equipped B-17s managed to get just 16% of their bombs within 400 yards of their aim point. Another issue is the US policy where only formation leaders actually aimed their bombs - other aircraft simply released when they saw their leader do so! But yes, obviously bombing was far easier during daylight than at night. Your comments about range are simply untrue: in fact, the 8th AF assigned really long range missions exclusively to B-24 units. You have to bear in mind that the Fortress was a much earlier design (six years was forever in aircraft design terms at the time). British fighters, by the way, began to be equipped with Hispanos from 1940. Only B-17Gs had anything like 13 0.50 cals: earlier models had fewer weapons, some of which were 0.30 cals. Not all the guns could be manned at once, of course. A downed B-17 meant the loss of ten young men, which must be taken into account. The Lancaster had two drawbacks: the lack of a ventral turret (there was one originally, but it used a periscope and was a complete waste of space), and the difficulty of bailing out for the pilots and bomb aimer - the result of that enormous bomb bay. Halifax crews had a significantly higher chance of escape. The 8.8 cm Flak guns (18, 36, 37 and 41) were all designed from the outset as anti-aircraft weapons: none were based on field artillery pieces.
The origins of the B17 always meant that it would have more range - It was designed for a specification in the Pacific theatre where you had much more sea and less land so any aircraft operating off runway strips rather than aircraft carriers had to have the legs to get to the target and back. With the Lancaster being designed for European operations, targets were closer, meaning you could sacrifice a longer range for extra payload
At 1800 feet it (Norden Sight) not only missed its pickle barrel, i.e the beach it was supposed to crater tom create shelter , for those incredibly brave men who were storming the us beaches on D Day, the average miss according to a post war USAAC investigation was 15 mile how close they got to the Beaches I dont know, but they sure beat the U,S Navy's D DAY rocket ships (we've all seen them firing a the Normandy beaches, the aim was to do the same as the U.S.A.AC,HOWEVER, they were told they had to be at a minimum 2 miles from their target, the beach in order to crater it from sea lineto the dunes, well the beach master master who was a ROYAL Marine Commandotold the documentary maker he shot up and down the incoming USN boats calling them cowards on his modified loud hailer as they were firing their entire loads of rockets 3 miles out, with the result that a rocket with a range of at best 2 miles never hit the beaches. So the U.S Navy holds 1 record for missing the target with literally thousands of rocket and a second for at extreeme close range having missed the continent of Europe completely! these are both well documented by both US and UK forces in after action reports into why there were so many casualities, when the planners had taken such pains to get it right, dont take my word check it out for yourselves.
@@cliffdixon6422 The B-17 was also expected to sacrifice range of bomb load too. P.13/36 was for 'world-wide use' not just Europe, and a maximum range (albeit with catapult-assisted launching) of 3000 miles. The Halifax was redesigned pretty early to use four engines, and with a 3000 mile range without catapult launching. The B-17s design maximum range was 3750 miles, albeit with a light armament. As armament increased, more wing tankage was added, but it was fighting a bit of a losing battle over range. However, in 1943 a Lancaster with at most 10 303s would have been dog meat in the skies in daylight.
Where the B-17 excelled was altitude performance due to turbocharging. The Lancaster VI had Merlins better optimised for high-altitude but only about a dozen were built so I suppose it wasn't really seen as much of a priority. The B-17 did well, though, on what were rather less powerful engines which suggests it was a lower drag design, which is impressive given the lack of tools for designing such things back then.
@@peterforden5917 I'm sorry, I missed the clip on the U.S. Navy at D-Day, I'll have to watch this video again, you can have another spot of tea on the beach while we're, I mean I'm TCB.👌Nob
@@peterforden5917 I talked to several people who said the Navy guys were cowards and wouldn't get them close in.
I’m American and I’d have to say Lancaster. The Merlin’s, twin tail, greater payload, and more versatile bomb bay put the Lancaster ahead. The US took daylight raids both for bomb accuracy and cause the night was busy with the British Lancasters. I think they might should of traded work shifts based on aircraft since the Lancaster was better. The US had a better bomb sight than the Norden (Norden was actually pretty terrible), but chose Norden cause the man selling it was a much better salesman.
Both great planes, the advantage the B17 had over the Lanc was its service ceiling, 35,000ft to the Lanc 21,000ft, that made the Lancaster more suitable to night missions whereas the B17 could be out of the range of most fighters except the Messerschmitt BF109.
Plus the better range and firepower.
I met Laurie Woods DFC once, he was just a little old man with a chest full of medals signing books in a quiet newsagents. Had a great chat to him and I offered to buy his book which he kindly signed. I was a student CPL pilot at the time and we had a great chat about all things planes. I read the book that week as was astonished at his exploits, he was a bomb aimer who TWICE had to take the controls from a pilot killed/wounded and land the plane back safely. I think he was with 425Sqn which was RAAF but like he said, it didn't really matter every squadron was a mixed bag of RAF, RAAF, RCAF, RNZAF etc
According to Dr mark felton, the Lancaster was the only plane at the time that was big enough to carry the atomic bombs until the b-29 was introduced in 1944
Since the US did not have any A bombs until July 1945 that hardly matters.
Do you think the US was going to put the most top-secret weapon in a plane with one pilot?
The Fat Man bomb would not fit in the bomb bay of a Lanc any more than the Grand Slam bomb.
"Dr" Mark was talking bollocks - check out Greg's Airplanes on You Tube for proof
Since there were no atomic bombs before 1945 that doesn't really seem like much of a handicap for the Americans.
Listen I love mfp but the whole lancaster was a serious consideration for the a bomb is not real. Not enough range, couldn't fit in the bombay, on and on plus records say the u.s. barely looked into it because the lanc bombay was not connected to the crew. They only armed fatty and boy moments before dropping them. Imagine a hot a bomb landing on tinian after a return landing from weather or mech problems?
I only came here to say that Mark Felton has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. If you enjoy his fictitious novels, then that says a lot about you and the facts you believe. That is all.
Due to a few things I would choose the B-17. Once the chin turret was added it became a formidable adversary but the 2 pilots and easier escape are the clinchers for me. The one thing I was amazed by, was the size of the B-17. Growing up, watching war movies of the 40s and 50s, I always imagined the plane as some large behemoth. In my 40s I finally had the pleasure to see one up close and realized just how small they really are. To fly for hours in it with your crewmates must have been an experience that I can never fully appreciate. True heroes.
You need twice as many pilots to be trained or replaced for a B17 and for half the payload, in terms of a war vehicle the Lanc was far more an effective machine
Lancaster for me. Those old movies really sum up the inventiveness of the designers and the bravery of the men who flew them. But the Flying Fortress is very close and just as brave. Great video.
Being an American I would have been a B-17 crewman. My grandfather fought in World War II with the Army Air corps and he was lucky enough to become a scout pilot and took the aftermath photos of the atomic bombs in the Pacific in a Piper Cub. A lot of his schoolmates went in to the 8th Air Force has Gunners and did not come home in his graduating class about 95% of the men died we are fortunate that we are here today because of the sacrifice of all the brave men and women of the past
Army Air Force during WWII.
It is not a like-for-like comparison, as the two aircraft were built and configured for different duties (night vs daytime ops). Both were historically great aircraft and crewed by unbelievably brave men who suffered terrible casualties while performing their duties.
No they wern't. Neither were built, designed or ooperated as eithe pure night or day boimbers. ans boh did opeate at day and night.
@@davesherry5384 They _were_ configured for different missions. True, either could be configured to operate for day or night, but given that the British settled on night bombing, and The USAAF settled on daylight bombing, Lancs and Forts were routinely configured to operate in each of their services' chosen missions. Given they operated in daylight most often, the Fortresses had to devote a lot more payload to defensive armament, with not only more defensive machine guns, but they were .50 calibers, as opposed to the .303 caliber machine guns on the Lancaster -- so more guns, and much heavier guns and ammunition, and extra machine gunners with their gear and oxygen bottles, etc.
The B-17 did have a smaller bomb bay, and it didn't have the ability to be reconfigured for the variety of specialty payloads that the cavernous Lancaster bomb bay could accomodate. On the other hand, the B-17's bomb bay could be accessed by the crew in flight, so the bombs were not armed until they plane was near the target. The Lancaster's bombs had to be armed on the ground before takeoff. That could be a problem if there was any kind of issue that required the plane to scrub the mission and turn around. You didn't want to land with a full load of armed bombs, especially if you were landing because of mechanical trouble, so typically you'd want to dump the bomb load -- could be a real problem though if you were still over friendly territory.
Each bomber had originally been designed around different mission profiles, and then in service was adapted by their respective services for the missions they actually ended up serving. As a result, they don't compare exactly to each other, and I don't think either would have performed the other's role as well as they did the missions they were actually used for.
@@Hibernicus1968 "configured for different Missions", "different mission profiles". You got the jargon off pat at least. Shame it's a load of rubbish.
The missions were the same - to bomb Germnay by day and by night and both bombers did both. Yep, the Lanc had .50 machines guns and even 20mm cannon too. Yep the lanc had a belly turret too later was replaced by a H2S blister. Yep the Lanc was far more flexible than the B17 both in missions and weapons load and weapons mix. It carried out numerous daylight bombing missions including the famous Tirpitz and Bielefeld Viaduct among many other missions using tall boy and grand slam inlcuindg in poland frnace, Norway and of course Germany.
Unfortunately, your commentray regarding arming the Lancater's bombload is quite incorrect. The bombs were generally armed in flight (not aall bombs needed to be armed at all) "There would be an arming wire run from each fuse and this was attached to the aircraft. When the bombs were released the arming wires were pulled out and the fuses then started to arm themselves by the small propellors on each fuse. The bombs had to fall a specified distance before they were armed. This then allowed the aircraft to dump the bombs on takeoff, should they lose an engine, without destroying friendly folks and potentially themselves. Of course, it was SOP for Tall boy/grand slam bombs to be returned to base in the evnt of anon drop due to their expense so yes, they often landed with bmbloads on.
And the B17 was in a similar situation. "In the B-17, and probably the B-24, it would have been possible to unhook the arming wires from the bomb racks and bend the part of the wire that was fed through the fuses so that it could not fall out and then dump the arming wires with the bombs. That way the propellors would not spin and the fuses would not arm. You would have to be quite agile in order to reach all the four bomb racks and it would not be a pleasant exercise!"
In the 8th Air Force the bombs were loaded with two 48" long (or so) lengths of wire connected to a ring in the middle. The ring was hooked onto the bomb rack. When the aircraft landed the bomb bay was a tangled mess or arming wires, all of which were disposed of. "
So the idea that arming and disarming B17s in flight was also a fallacy according to veteren B17 crews. Unfortunetley, your commentary is quite inaccurate in all respects so i give you a "D. Poor effort. Could do better"
@@davesherry5384 I'm going by Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles. He researches his videos very thoroughly, and cites his sources, and I certainly trust him more than an ill-mannered blowhard.
That, plus one was a heavy & the other a medium.
I got to go inside a B-17 at the Evergreen Air Museum in Oregon. It was an honor. It was much smaller than I expected. I would like to fly in either but I am happy that I never had to do a mission in either since it was a near death sentence.
I would take the Mosquito.. Oh. That's not a choice but it go way faster, higher and carry a slightly larger bombload than the B17. I would chose the B17 out of the memory of my father who was a navigator/top Turret Gunner on a B17 and won an Air Medal with clusters
Great aircraft. Best 2 engine aircraft of WW2 in my opinion. Thanks to your father for his service.
Love your footage from Aces High!! In the game, the Lancaster is the top bomber due to its higher speed, higher altitude, and bomb load. The only draw back is the lack of defensive weapons.
I believe the B-17 had the altitude edge. Trick question: which was faster at 32000 ft?
@@saparotrob7888 B-17
@@saparotrob7888 Average European cloud base is between 6,500 feet and 15,000 feet ,
mostly cant see the target bombing visually at 32000ft, (some US bombers in the dresden raid hit Prague, )
B-17's traded range and warload assembling and getting up to height
good observation about the wingspar, that among other things, apparently, led to a much lower survival rate among air crews in lancasters when compared to 17s. The 17s were favored among american crewmen over 24's too, which had a tendency to either catch on fire or have their wings fall off, I cant remember which. I'd also never considered the implications of trying to escape at night, that was a cool point. I had the chance to see the lancaster up close when i visited london a couple of years ago - as far as looks and impression it was the clear winner over the 17, in my opinion, although I think i'd fly in the 17 if I had the choice. Good video, I really enjoyed it! I really liked the p51 jab about the us not being a thing without the brits, which is true, but it always makes me giggle when it gets brought up
The Lancaster for sure. 4000-5000 lbs of bombs carried by B-17s and B-24s on an average mission was an unusually light load for what were supposed to be heavy bombers. The Vickers Wellington routinely carried much heavier bomb loads than that and it was considered a medium bomber.
Bomb loads Operational history of Lancaster 1B R5868 on line
Apparently the mosquito could carry up to 4000lb
@@crabby7668 DH98 Mosquito FB. Mk VI 2,305 built. Fighter bomber / intruder variant using Merlin 22, 23 or 25. 4 (Browning) machine guns and 4 (Hispano) cannons, plus 2 x 250 lb bombs carried internally & underwing carriage of up to 2 x 500 lb bombs. Could be fitted with underwing rocket projectiles or drop tanks instead of external bomb carriage.
BAE Mosquito page
@@crabby7668 DH98 Mosquito B. Mk IX 54 built 1,680 hp Merlin 72 engines - otherwise as B. Mk IV. 54 built. Could carry 2,000 lb internally, plus one 500 lb bomb or a drop tank under each wing. Some modified with bulged bomb bay doors for 4,000 lb bomb.
BAE Mosquito page
4,000 pounds
Operation Bellicose - Lancaster Raid Deep Into Germany
ua-cam.com/video/mdILcTZWzzk/v-deo.html
Lancaster looks like a flying cargo container. Which is why it was able to carry so much larger items and loads.
Yes cargo for some nice hydroelectric dams express delivery
The Lanc, not just because I'm British, it's also because my Grandfather worked on them. He was RAF groundcrew in WW2. Also, one of the only times I remember my father and I actually cooperating on a project was building a Dambusters themed scale model, which unfortunately disappeared years ago....
I'd take the B-17, due to the tight formation tactics they used. In the Lancaster, you were flying "single charlie", but still, the Lancaster was an amazing plane. Both bombers were great and they were both flown by great men, on some amazing missions.
Thank you for all the hard work.
Peace
It's worth looking up the daylight Lancaster formations very common from mid-1944 onwards.
A large 'gaggle' with no real formation, but a certain distance between each plane, corresponding to the lethal range of the defensive weapons used (.303 and .50cal MGs by then).
It was a compressed version of the night 'bomber stream' method already used, but with more visibility, and usually compressed in time (front to rear of formation) as well.
The B-17s stacked and high and low formations could (it was a pre-WWII theory) defend each other, getting more gunners onto any attacking fighter.
@@stevetheduck1425 I just checked out RAF Bomber Command Operational Film No 249 daylight attack on München-Gladbach 27 December 1944. They were pretty loosey goosey but the footage is pretty amazing. Yeah, I don't know if those B-17 formations were any better, but it seemed to give the crews some peace of mind.
I read a book on the WWII German Fighter Defense based on actual pilot anecdotes. Given a choice with late war daylight raids -they would rather attack the Lancasters.
What book? I'd like to read it.
@@bentighe4811 Its a great pity the early war bombers are often forgotten along with their crews, Whitleys, Hampdens, Blenheims Wellingtons and the like, and lets not forget Coastal Commands , aircraft all the Shorts aircraft and even faithfull Annie, the Avro Anson not forgetting the various De Havilland biplane aircraft that were given bomb racks for an invasion that never came, even Glosters immortal gladiators did their bit for King and Country, too many fine planes and crews forgotten :(