B-17 Flying Fortress VS. Lancaster Bomber
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лют 2025
- CITIZENS OF HISTORY! Decorate your walls with a Simple History Premium Print today: electrify.art/... and don't miss out-grab a 25% discount now!
In this video, we dive into one of the most compelling comparisons of World War II aviation history: the American B-17 Flying Fortress and the British Lancaster bomber. These iconic aircraft played critical roles in the Allied war effort, but how did they measure up against each other?
#B17 #Lancaster #WWII #AviationHistory
Check out our other Channel: / @simplehistorylive
Discord server: / discord
Become a Simple History member: www.youtube.co...
Copyright: DO NOT translate and re-upload our content on UA-cam or other social media.
SIMPLE HISTORY MERCHANDISE
Get the Simple History books on Amazon:
www.amazon.com...
T-Shirts
teespring.com/...
Simple history gives you the facts, simple!
See the book collection here:
Amazon USA
www.amazon.com/...
Amazon UK
www.amazon.co.u...
/ simple-history-5494376...
/ simplehistoryyt
B-17 Flying Fortress - Original Content Credit:
Simple History Creator: Daniel Turner (B.A. (Hons) in History, University College London)
Video Directors: Anthony Barrett, Denis Blinov
Script: Robert De Graaf
Script Review: Denis Blinov
Narrator: Chris Kane (vocalforge.com)
Artists: ShyShelly, Arya Ahumada Lydisma
Animators: Kuldip Bheda, Krunal, Mani Kumar, Bharghavi
Editor: Alec Urbany
Senior Production Manager: Umar Ijaz
Simple History Channel Manager: James Dowse
Compilation Credit:
Simple History Creator: Daniel Turner (B.A. (Hons) in History, University College London)
Thumbnails: Daniel Turner
Video Editor: James Dowse
Senior Production Manager: Umar Ijaz
Simple History Channel Manager: James Dowse
Which legendary bomber do YOU think was more impactful in WWII - the B-17 Flying Fortress or the Lancaster Bomber?
B-17
I think they both had their own respective impacts, but I'm just saying that because these are 2 of my favorite planes 😂
I like both. But I guess, you know which one is my favorite :)
Lancaster
Personally I think that regarding their importance, they are evenly matched, but as an aviation nerd I would love to read different opinions.
I was friends with a B-17 crew member before he passed away, Homer Cole. He started out in the ball turret and ended up as a tail gunner. He used to joke "I could never tell where we were going, only where we had been."
RIP Homer
That’s a dope quote it’s always a honor to have been able to speak to the WW2 vets eventually all we will have is stories of these amazing men honored to have also been able to meet some WW2 guys and shake their hands 🇺🇸
is going from ball to tail an upgrade or downgrade?
@@timetraveler1973 statistically, the tail gunners suffered a higher casualty rate, but I would not want to be in that ball turret.
@@jimbotron2yeah like if the plane is shot down there is no way that the ball gunner is surviving the crash
@@timetraveler1973 upgrade. you didn't want to be in that claustrophobic place. What a nightmare to be flying in one even in peaceful times. And you have to be small too, preferably a midget to fit in there.
I live a short distance away from where the one of the two flying Lancasters is based. Words cannot describe the magnificent sound that comes off its engines, and the striking silhouette it makes in the skies.
I've gotten to see the Canadian Lanc flying twice in my life time at the Abbotsford International Airshow. The first time when I took my now late Grandfather to see it fly along with a Spitfire and a Hurricane. Imagine the sound of six Merlin engines snarling in low flight, while beating up an airfield........
Not a fan of the Lancaster, but the Merlin engines were amazing. There is no sound like a Merlin and four them must be unbelievable.
The Lancaster out of Hamilton Ontario regularly fly's over my house during the summer, quite the site and sound. A friend of mine has actually flown in the Lancaster, lucky sod!
@@louisschummer931 I was one of the lucky ones to fly in VeRA out of Hamilton. Most of us passengers were bawling our eyes out during engine start-up.
G for George is the only airworthy Australian Lancaster. Massive history built in 42 flew with 460sqn RAAF retired in 44 with 90 operational missions. it comes out of the museum every few years, does a few big air shows, and then goes back and gets overhauled.
I am partial to the Lancaster as my grandfather was a Lanc tail gunner with the RCAF. he survived the war but only really started talking about it after i joined the Army. my basement is now adorned with all of his Lancaster memorabilia and i get absolutely giddy when i get to see the one here in Ontario flying.
So was my uncle Walter, a tail end Charlie. Heroes one and all
Wow!! I knew a tailgunner who lived next to my best mate growing up. He wrote a character reference for him when he joined the RAF.
Absolute heroes to a man.
One of the most disgusting things about the RAF, and the Lancaster airmen, was that a tour was 30 flights, and they were expected to do two tours.
An airman, could get all the way to his penultimate second tour flight, and suddenly find he couldn't do it.
He would be relieved of duty, and have his record marked 'LMF', Lacks Moral Fibre!
@@MrAllenwatson hats off to the man! Serious respect for tail gunners.
@@petersmith9470 hats off to your Uncle Walter. Serious respect
Nobody talks about the b-24 liberator which made a huge impact aswell and was the most produced bomber ever made
Boeing had earlier and better PR.
I find it fascinating that Pratt went on the B-24 and the Wrights on the B-17.
B-24 had more payload at range.
It was a flying coffin
Poor old Liberator and Hurricane, overshadowed by the reputation of their stable mates, the B-17 and Spitfire.
@@clonecommandermike332 All bomber were back then. The odds of getting out of one when it was going down were damn near slim to none. Today's bombers have ejection seats to even up the odds of survival a bit.
Comparing a Corvette to a pickup truck. B24 was far more mass production friendly.
Probably gonna trigger some people here but whilst the B-17 is a perfectly good bomber it can't beat the Lancaster, they're simply not in the same weight class. Lancaster's were equipped with radar that allowed them to detect oncoming fighters, they could fly just as well at night as during the day, it could carry every bomb the allies had to the point the Americans even had to ask the British to have a set of Lancaster's ready to drop of the Atomic bomb on Japan if the B-29s developed faults. Nearly every hardened target the Germans had were attacked with Lancaster's carrying tallboys because the B-17 couldn't carry something of that size which was one of the few weapons that could penetrate underground concrete bunkers. The only thing the B-17 did better was in it's defence armaments and crew survivability. The latter is good obviously, the former is debatable considering that a couple of extra guns made little difference to the horrific losses B-17s were suffering in day time raids over Germany until they managed to give it a fighter escort with the P-51.
^This
The B-17 was primarily designed for day missions and was really good or useful for night missions.
The bombs on a 17 could be armed in flight making it safer than the lanc. On a lanc the bombs were live on takeoff, making a rejected takeoff rather exciting. Also lanc had to drop bombs if it needed to return without making it to target.
Lancaster wasn’t capable of carrying the atomic bomb. The A bomb was bigger than most realize,also range was too far. The 29 was bigger and more of everything than is realized.
@@rannyacernese6627 B-17's routinely jetisoned their bombs if forced to return before reaching their target, that was the SOP of the day.
My grandfather flew 33 mission in B-17s during WW2 and 1 in Korea. He was usually the ball turret gunner. He had some crazy stories. Nearly died by flak hitting his head and was shot down / crash landed 3 separate times. I wish I would’ve got some recordings and stories written down tho, never thought at the time but hard to remember all the details he told during my youth.
He didn’t fly b-17’s in the Korean War.
What was his B-17 nicknamed? (Example: Begotten Jenny *source from Yarnhub on a Sherman tank*)
@@mrbig4532There were RB17s in Korea for Three months.
@@mrbig4532re: “he didn’t fly B-17s during the Korean War.” - not as bombers, maybe. Even that’s uncertain, but regardless a cursory search of photos online shows B-17s in Korea being used in roles varying from search and rescue to utility transport. There were only three airstrips in Korea initially capable of handling B-29 operations, for example, while B-17s were rugged enough and low enough wing-load to easily operate from smaller un paved strips.
B-17s operated throughout the Korean War, and well into the 1950s.
@@randallturner9094 This is how you set someone back from their certain know it all affirmations-without-facts-to-support their claims.
Good job.
Lancs weren’t made with daylight raids in mind. The Brits had moved away from daylight raids in 1941 after disastrous results. The Brits realised no amount of defensive armament could save a bomber from serious attack by fighters. The Lancs was designed to drop maximum loads.
"maximum load" indeed, RAF heavies were flying daylight over Germany in July 1942. Mediums and lights continued to operate in daylight.
Bomber Losses, Germany and Northern Europe
HC Deb 13 October 1943 vol 392 cc863-4
§28. Mr. Stokes asked the Secretary of State for Air how many British bombers were lost over Germany and Northern Europe during the month of September; the total for the nine months ended 30th September; and whether he has any information as to the figures for American bombers over the same periods?
§Sir A. Sinclair 193 British and 92 American bomber aircraft operating from this country were reported lost over Germany and Northern Europe during September. The totals for the nine months ended 30th September are 1,844 British and 539 American.
“A typical interception in the fall of 1942 has been described by Johannes Naumann, at that time an Oberleutnant in II/JG 26. The Gruppe was ordered to attack the bombers on their return flight as there was no chance of reaching them on their bomb run. The B-17’s were flying in a staggered formation at about 26,000 feet. The Focke Wulfs finally struggled up to 27,000 feet, only to see the American formation receding into the distance. The speed of the FW 190’s at that altitude was only a little greater than that of the bombers…No bombers were downed; none had even suffered visible damage.”
page 125
Top Guns of the Luftwaffe Donald L. Caldwell
@@nickdanger3802 Climbing speed to altitude and level speed at altitude are not the same thing. FW 190 service ceiling is listed as nearly 34,000 feet so there was some other factor than speed involved. Fuel perhaps?
Are you sure they weren't chasing Mosquitos?
@@andrewfleming8103 Fuel played a part.
"Fw 190A series' performance decreased at high altitudes (usually 6,000 m [20,000 ft] and above), which reduced its effectiveness as a high-altitude interceptor. From the Fw 190's inception, there had been ongoing efforts to address this with a turbosupercharged BMW 801 in the B model, the much longer-nosed C model with efforts to also turbocharge its chosen Daimler-Benz DB 603 inverted V12 powerplant, and the similarly long-nosed D model with the Junkers Jumo 213. Problems with the turbocharger installations on the -B and -C subtypes meant only the D model entered service in September 1944."
wiki
"But in the beginning, we had not fully assessed the possibility of daylight bombers. Our fighters could not cope with them. When we were able to do so, there was a pause and then you sent them out with fighter escort. The Flying Fortress, for example, had more than we had anticipated. Our estimate was incorrect."
Hermann Göring
My Dad's uncle, Jack Coster, was the bomb-aimer in a Lancaster crew in 97 Squadron, RAF. All but one of the crew members were Australians from the RAAF (the flight engineer was English). 97 Squadron was a Pathfinder squadron in 5 Group whose role was to drop flares on the target and keep backing them up (replenishing them) through the attack and the crew flew from late 44 to March 45. The crew went missing on 21 March, 1945 during an attack on the Bohlen oil refineries and have not been found since. Jack was 20 years old, and his pilot was 22. RIP to the whole crew.
The main reason the Lancaster had such a large bomb bay and strong airframes structure was down to some of the original requirements that the Manchester was designed to carry out, torpedo bombing was one of them hence the long unobstructed bomb bay to allow the carrying of two torpedoes internally, another couple were dive bombing and the ability to be ‘catapult launched’ from a proposed land based catapult system which resulted in the strong airframes structure, all those ideas were dropped after the Manchester design had been finalised.
Woah I knew none of this thanks for the inspiration 👍🏻
My grandad was a Lancaster tail gunner and survived two complete tours plus a few more of a third. He never fired his guns except to test them after take off, and neither did the other gunners. He could see enemy aircraft soon enough that he could warn his pilot so they could evade. Firing would just let the enemy know where he was and would draw in an attack. Also the .303" rounds weren't very good at an immediate kill, which is why he and so many other gunners wanted .50 or even 20mm guns. To see clearly, he removed most of the plexiglass in his turret to stop glare, so he was in effect sitting in a metal cage wearing as much clothing as possible for hours at a time. He had frostbite more than once! All this while knowing his chances of bailing out were essentially zero and he had a huge chance of being a nightfighters first target. Truly the greatest generation. My other grandad was one of the first Royal Marine commandos, but that's another story.
That makes sense since the Germans had no luck with their night fighters. There was nothing for the bomber to shoot at.
My uncle Fred flew in both during the war.
He was a gunner, rear gunner in a Lancaster, but also did spells as a rear and waist gunner in a B17.
Did 27 ops and survived the war
I had the opportunity to fuel a Lancaster this summer at an airshow, one of only two still flying. One of the coolest things I’ll do!
B-17 was a great aircraft with a small payload (the single-engined single-crew 1946 Skyraider had the same bomb-carrying capacity).
The Lanc had twice the payload, but half the guns (8x 7.7mm vs 13x 12.7mm)
The men who took either into battle had balls of steel.
The Lancasters max bomb load was 10000kgs.
Exactly this. Its easy to compare aircraft. its not easy to compare the men that had to man it. Balls of steel for certain.
The B-17 design was 6-7 years older, and aircraft design during that period was moving at light speed. There were biplanes flying at the beginning of the war for the UK and Italy and jets by the end. Lancasters also had exceptional engines with the Rolls Royce Merlin.
@@edwardloomis887 yeah, there is never a perfect comparison. But i think this one is close. I think the original poster nailed it.
b-17 and Lancaster had basically the same payloads when compared apples to apples.
11:16 When you said "weight", I wasn't looking at my screen. I thought you had said "wait". I was on the edge of my seat!
Same
@@antonnurwald5700 that makes three of us! 😂
I had the pleasure of meeting a Lancaster crewman whose plane was shot down over Belgium. As it fell, the fuselage broke open, which at least gave him a quick exit. The locals tried to hide him, but the Germans eventually captured him. Years later he attended a reunion in Belgium -- the people remembered them with gratitude.
My dad was regular RAF serving from 36 to 45. He spent most of the war in Aden and like many in the Air Force never flew a mission but they made sure every plane was serviced and ready to go. Like thousands of other servicemen he was fortunate to return home safe in one piece. Few of these men and women are still with us but their contribution during and after the war should not be forgotten.
I think an important note is the doctrine governing missions. Americans chose to do high altitude bombing missions in daytime, whereas the British chose lower altitude night missions as a means of stealth. There is more at play than sheer vehicle characteristics when it comes to survivability and accuracy etc.
If the comment on the B-17s no longer being considered “airworthy”, that because of an incident at an air show a couple years back as a direct result of a mid air collision.
The FAA has ultimately determined the show coordinator was at fault due to negligence and complacency, not any issues with the pilots or aircraft themselves.
I flew on the B-17 "Sentimental Journey" in July of 2023, as she and an accompanying B-25 did a tour in Canada. I wondered about that statement too, as she sure seemed airworthy to me!
It was obvious from the video the fighter pilot was at fault for the collision. His situational awareness was poor, especially because of the design of his acft.
Improper preflight briefings or air space confliction issues are always supposed to be brought up and deconflicted prior to take-off. They had done this enough times to become complacent. Complacency is the gremlin all pilots and maintainers must deal with and control, when dealing with acft.
@@664chrismanThe FAA issued an "airworthiness directive" to inspect the wing attach points. Once the AD was complied with and passed, it was OK to fly again.
FAA has also reported that Boeing is not at fault for the wave of crashes happening to their modern aircraft. Don't justify people's lives with organizations that are easily bribed.
I remember that. It resulted in the loss of a b 17 and p 51( I think it was a p51?) Together.
As a Englishman, the Lancaster will always win in my eyes. However, the beauty of the B17 cannot be underestimated, nor the equal gallant bravery of those that crewed them. Imagine facing Lancasters, B17's, Mosquito's, B29's, B24 and B25s, Wellingtons...
😂
😂😂😂 init
You forgot to mention the various radar systems used by the Lanc to identify incoming night fighters or for blind bombing or the various radio navigation aids created for its use to get it to its targets deep in Germany.
Of course they did, having all that tech on the Lanc would make the 17 look a bit ordinary - they didn't mention the Grand Slam either.
@@curiousuranus810yeah that’s been intentionally missed out for sure. Classic American content tbf.
Oooor, maybe you didn't know, forgot, or intentionally overlooked that only heavily modified/specialised versions of Lancasters had that, and they weren't as common as "mainstream" Lancasters, just like other modifications of B-17s... And don´t hit me with (country) bias, everybody does that.
B-17 could get deep into germany even without all that.
@RyanSVK actually the majority of Lancaster bombers were radar equipped.
During the war two of my uncles were navigators and one a rear gunner on the Lancaster boomers. Brave men.
I am partial to the Lanc. A couple of reasons. My uncle was a bomber pilot & survived the war. As a Canadian, I had the pleasure of seeing one of the air worthy Lancs at Canadian Warplane Heritage. Saving my money to one day pay for a flight!
I would recommend that you do a video on Charlie Brown and Franz Stigler.
On December 20, ‘43, a pilot by the name of Charles "Charlie" Brown was in his B-17F, Ye Old Pub, their mission was to bomb the Focke Wulf in Bremen. After dropping their bombs, the bird had been badly damaged, including the death of Hugh “Ecky” Eckenrode. The B-17 went in a steep dive. After being passed out, due to the oxygen tanks being shot up. Charlie and his co-pilot, Spencer “Pinky” Luke, managed to bring the Flying Fortress back up. But, Charlie accidentally flew over a Luftwaffe airfield. Catching the attention of a German pilot who ran straight to his 109. Oblt. Franz Stigler, who was just one kill away from earning Germany's Knight's Cross. After catching up to the B-17, Frans had his finger on the trigger, when he realized the tail gunner was dead. He flew over to the side and witnessed the injured crew in the fuselage. Charlie turned white as soon as he saw the 109 flying in formation with him. Franz gestured that they land in Germany, but Charlie refused. Franz then gestured to land in neutral Sweden, the same response was given. AA crews held their fire when they saw the 109 flying next to the B-17. Franz then flew to the other side to tell Charlie to land in Sweden. Charlie then told his turret gunner, Sergeant Bertram “Frenchie”, to aim at the 109. Franz then gave Charlie a respectful salute, and headed home. Two P-47s would soon join Ye Old Pub and escort it home. Charlie’s crew were surprised at the encounter with the sympathetic German. The story was kept secret until ‘89, when Charlie began his search for the German pilot. In 1990, Charlie got a letter, from Franz. They finally met in person and were interviewed about this seemingly unreal story.
Charles “Charlie” Brown
(October 24, 1922-November 24, 2008)
Franz Stigler
(August 21, 1915-March 22, 2008)
"No man hath greater love than he who layeth his life for his enemy."
Videos about this story:
Yarnhub:
ua-cam.com/video/SQe4roNR8Nc/v-deo.htmlsi=ZIK57pagF8zt-phg
C-bass Productions
ua-cam.com/video/TSluTZGxdY0/v-deo.htmlsi=IY89P-GzIy8Ukv6L
NEVER2YUNG4AVIETNAMFLASHBACK:
ua-cam.com/video/_lp9-cN_Oog/v-deo.htmlsi=MmXkPJXg24jWhR-qOn
Pretty sure they already have. Even if they haven't Yarnhub has like two vids of it.
ua-cam.com/video/oj5k89auJ2E/v-deo.html Starts at about 3:45
@ I’m talking about a full video about this.
"No Bullets Fly"
P/O Lt Andrew Mynarski. Canadian VC winner who tried to save his tail gunner while the plane went down. the door jammed, and fire came quickly, but the tail gunner survived to tell his story and the other surviving flying Lancaster in Hamilton Ontario is named after him
Both done the job and had very very brave crew who lost so many.
I appreciate the lack of inclusion regarding the other flying Lanc, out of the Wartime Museum in Hamilton, Ontario Canada. Hearing it flying overhead is an unmistakable sound.
Although i consider myself a Little Englander and am a big fan of the RAF's WWII bombers and fighters, since making models as a child I've always loved the B17 Fortress and the P51 Mustang long distance escort fighter. Such beautiful aircraft
I recently got to watch a B-17 start up and take off in 2024 from the Erickson aircraft collection near Madras Oregon in route to an air show in California. It was a sight to behold and I was very fortunate to be able to experience that
I got to tour the B-17 that flew the last operational mission for the air force in 1947. “Kismet”, which is out front at the Planes of Fame museum in Chino California. It is currently very original and non-flying, but their plans are to restore her to flying status.
Fun fact - the B17 initially combat in the RAF's Coastal Command who used it to provide long range protection to maritime convoys during the early years of WW2 in July 1941. They provided valuable feedback to Boeing for modifications to later B17 variants.
My great great uncle was in the lanc as a front gunner he was in the dambusters aswell. They nearly crashed by hitting the sea and lost their upkeep bomb so they returned back he was shot down sadly in 1943
My grandfather was a reconnaissance crew of Lancaster. I sadly never got to meet him since he died before I was born but all of my family always talk about how much of a gentleman and a man with great values who almost spoke like a philosopher.
I wish I met him and I hope I can be like him.
Slight correction to the Lancaster specs, only a very small handfull of the first batch of MK1's flew with Merlin XX's the rest following on with the improved Merlin 22's or 33's, the MK2 flew with the Bristol Hercules radials but were deemed a poor fit so didnt enjoy a very big run, its replacement the MK3 from inception flew with Licence built Packard Merlins as bomb free USA could churn them out in their thousands while we were being bombed silly by the Luftwaffe, although due to on going war damage maintainence it wasnt uncommon for active squadron Lancasters of all marks to be fitted with what ever was available at the time new or rebuilt after damage.
It also wasn’t uncommon for Lancaster’s fuselages to be mix and matched because the nose, center fuselage and tail were separate modules. Damage a nose and the entire cockpit section was replaced.
My grandfather joined the USAF when right after he turned 17. He was the captain of a B-17 and flew his 21st and final mission on his 21st birthday. I recently learned he was a part of the firebombing of Dresden.
I wish I spoke with him more.
My dad flew B-17's during that war....if not for the great ruggedness of that plane he might not have survived the war and I might not have ever been here.....God bless the Flying Fort!
I've met one of the BBMF Lancaster Pilots. It's so amazing that it can still fly, and how we honour and see it still in its glory.
The B17 came into great numbers just as WWII started. It had its Goldilocks moments, just perfect for its role in WWII.
Whaaat? the US didn't join WWII until 2 years, 3 months and 7 days after it started, they were very late to the party.
Goldilocks? What are you smoking?
The B17 was a terrible aircraft. Overly complex, incredibly expensive to build. Its over abundance of guns proved ineffective at protecting them (despite the Americans confidence that the B17s alone would wipe out the Luftwaffe) and ended up costing the aircraft by making it slow and limiting its range and payload. Its bombsight was an over hyped piece of junk. Sure it performed admirably in testing, but in operations it was flying at over twice the height and proved no more accurate at hitting its target than any other bombsight. And that’s before taking into consideration that only the lead bomber in the formation was actually aiming, the rest of the formation would ‘bomb on lead’.
The lives of thousands of brave young men were thrown away with little to show for it. And yet despite its awful performance and horrific loss rates internet dweebs continue to heap praise on this cursed machine.
My grandpa was an observer in Lancasters and wellingtons. Basically the navigator who would release the bombs and take pictures, plot the bomb runs etc.....his logbook diaries that are now in a museum are incredible. He flew over 70 missions was awarded the DFC and shot down. He survived and saved a colleague by holding on to him when they parachuted down only o be arrested by locals in the UK as they weren't to sure if they were German or not 😆
I like both. But I guess, you know which one is my favorite :)
The Handley Halifax?
@ Short Stirling
Is it the Lancaster?
The Crop Duster? Hehw
r/usernamechecksout
My Grandfather was a flight engineer on a Halifax bomber, the smaller sibling of the Halifax. He was shot down on his 19th mission in May 1943 and survived, but ended up as a POW but was sent home before the end of WW2 due to serous PTSD, although they called it something else. Bomber command is one of the bravest part of the military in my mind, literally it was a suicide mission. Not taking a jot from any military as all men and women are braver than I could ever be❤💙
I’m on holiday in the uk at the moment and I went to the British war museum and I saw the cockpit of a Lancaster it’s enormous holllyyyy
At the Imperial War Museum?
But only one pilot.
@@vulture3874 I think the RAF Museum at Hendon is now considered part of the IWM
My grandad was a pilot and flew the Lancaster,during the 2nd world war. He flew 36 sorties over Germany and Europe. I was lucky enough to know my grandad. Great look at both planes. Thank you
Personally my favorite bomber is the B25 which was used during the Doolittle raid in 1942
My great grandfather worked as mechanic for the mighty 8th and both repaired and maintained the b-17s before they left and after they returned. He would tell me about all of the things he would fix on that plane and as a kid, I loved to hear what he had to say.
RiP grand dad. 392nd for the win!
The RCAF flew Lancasters in the photo reconnaissance, mapping, maritime patrol, as well as search and rescue until 1964.
This is well-done. I really appreciate the accuracy of the renderings.
15 minutes in, you mention one issue with baling out of a Lancaster. There were several.
First ~ tribal issue. I am an Australian and I had an older friend, when I was a child, who had been a tail gunner in a Lancaster, and very nearly died doing it.
The Lancaster was a slightly newer design than the B-17, and it had comparable speed and climb and bomb load v range performance. The B-17 was significantly better in one way. Thought had been given at the design stage, to how the crew might bale out of a damaged aircraft. It didn't have ejection seats, nothing had ejection seats at that time, but there had been some thought given to getting out. The Lancaster, by contrast, was a tight fit and an awkward squeeze to get into and out of, on the ground. Getting out of the thing in the dark, while it was in a spin and one engine was on fire, was practically impossible.
Sadly, the British didn't fix this in the 1950s, with the Lincoln, they didn't fix it in the '60s with the V bombers, and arguably, only fixed it in the '80s with the Tornado ~ which has a crew of 2 ~ not 7 or 8. In many ways I think the Lanc was a better aeroplane, but on that point (and the presence of armour plate, which was in very short supply in a Lancaster) the American bomber was a far safer place to live and work.
Which one had a greater impact and effect on the outcome of the war? I think that is debatable. I think the most important point, is that the Americans came by day and the British came by night, and there was no break or stop. Some part of Germany or German occupied land was getting bombed, 24/7 unless the weather completely stopped it. The key fact wasn't one or the other ~ the key fact was both of them keeping up 'round the clock bombing.
My Great uncle was part of the design team that worked on the Norden Bomb sight. His expertise was automatic pilot systems. This and alot of other wartime projects he did for the government when he was working for Lear Aviation in their weapons division came to light after he passed away in 2008 and were declassified.
@michaelbenjmitchell1 The Norden Bomb sight It was promoted as a technological marvel capable of "precision bombing," though its effectiveness was very overstated under combat conditions. Corruption allegations emerged regarding its development and procurement, including claims of inflated costs and insider profiteering by contractors. It relied on visual targeting, which could be hindered by weather, night time and smoke. The British Mark XIV Bomb sight was superior to the Norden in its practicality and reliability during real-world combat operations. Designed for the RAF’s night bombing campaigns, the Mark XIV was simple, robust, and effective, making it well-suited to the challenging conditions of nighttime raids over Europe. Unlike the Norden, which relied heavily on clear visual conditions and extensive operator training, the Mark XIV excelled under adverse weather, smoke, or darkness. Its user-friendly design allowed crews to focus more on their mission and less on complex calibration. While the Norden boasted greater theoretical precision for daylight bombing, its performance was hindered by environmental factors and operational complexities. In contrast, the Mark XIV's adaptability and ease of use made it a far more reliable and versatile tool. Was your Great uncle wealthy?
Got the chance to fly a surviving airworthy B-17G with the CAG, specifically in the bombardier position, and went on a relatively simple 30-minute flight.
I tell you, it was a thrill being in the foremost seat of the plane (even recorded a short video of the takeoff), though it was also a bit scary, especially after you take in how old the plane is, even with the care the CAG gave it. The one thing that stuck with me most of all, though, was the noise. Even with earplugs _and_ earmuffs, you can still (almost clearly) hear and especially feel all four engines at work. Couple that with being quite the military history buff like I am and imagining yourself as one of hundreds or even thousands of crew and even planes from back in the day, and it was particularly humbling.
Just to also mention, that same day I flew on the B-17G, I also got to go up in a B-25 and even in the only remaining airworthy SB2C (I think the SB2C was grounded at some point after that). If anyone is curious about what those flights were like, ask and I will share what I experienced.
My father was a B17 bombardier. The loss rate of his squadron was almost 90%. He survived over 40 missions, as he flew in other aircraft that needed a bombardier. He flew some unescorted night missions dropping surrender leaflets over Germans in France.
One small critique - at 2:38 your graphics seem to be pointing at an area of the engine nacelles well behind the actual engines. In the 2 inboard nacelles this would be where the main landing gear is stored when retracted. The Wright Cyclone is actually a fairly "shallow" engine in the radial layout and is located in that cowling directly behind the propellor.
The artwork for the Lancaster’s Engines looks amazing, good job guys
Air Chief Marshall Sir Arthur Travers "Bomber" Harris' "shining sword" was specifically designed as a night bomber and flew 156,000 sorties. Adolf Galland (the scarred ME 262 commander) called it "the best night bomber of the war". Its debut was over Helgoland Bight dropping mines on 2 Mar 1942. On 10 Mar they took part in a raid on Essen. On 29 Mar, a heavy attack on undefended Lübeck proved Harris' advisor Lindemann's theory on overwhelming the defence with 1000 aircraft, using HE to blow off roofs and create a chimney effect and set the buildings alight with incendiaries to create a firestorm. It was followed up with more HE to prevent fire brigades fighting the blaze. He said the Germans had "sown the wind and would now reap the storm".
Yes in Dresden 30,000
Women and children senselessly murdered in the last weeks of war.
Harris was a war criminal.
It's a biblical Quote Hosea 2..
He who sows the wind will reap the whirlwind.... It's in Harris's autobiography.
@clivestainlesssteelwomble7665 Did these women and children do that that is just enough stupid answer
16:28 The 12,000 lb was called a tallboy, and you missed the 22,000 lb grand slam. They were streamlined, not like the dustbin you showed, so they could reach supersonic speeds to penetrate armour or embed themselves in the ground to create an artificial earthquake.
Those airmen of the B17s, were very brave men, daylight raids were almost suicide runs. And sadly, it was young men who had a great deal to live for, who gave everything. People like me (a Brit), born, not long after the war, very much value and understand their sacrifice. Let us hope, that future generations, do not forget, as we as long as we live will not.
B-17F is my favorite prop driven bomber.
B-36
@@calneigbauer7542Me too; The insane bomb load + six propellers + the sheer size + the retractable turrets = incredibly cool
Pretty sure it had the same gun targeting system as the B-29, of not better (the one that estimates where the gunner should aim for him (leaf indicator), and that allows different gunners to give control of the turrets to each other in case someone got shot or someone else had better view of enemy fighters)
@@superliogaming B36 also had 4 jets, 6 turnin, 4 burning !!!!
My great uncle was a Lancaster Navigator Gunner 428 Ghost Squadren RCAF
his bombardier might have been trained by my Grandfather. my grandfather was RAF/RCAF involved in helping train pilots and bombardier on the Link Trainers at the bases in the UK
Mine flew them. He was killed in action, sadly.
@@dtpc191991 Mine aswell gardening the channel
A correction to add. There were fighters such as the P-38 that had plenty of range to cover the escort role, even early in the war. Some historians nowadays claim the lack of escort was entirely political. The prevailing doctrine surrounding the Army Air Corps prior to the war was that of the supremacy of bombers under the idea that they did not require escort. The idea that there were no fighters capable of running the escort mission was not true. To that effect, they sidelined the P-38 in the escort role and even prevented the development of external fuel tanks for the P-47 to be able to do the job. They were wedded to a disproven idea for far too long.
My grandfather was in the RAF in ww2, he was a single parent so was spared being aircrew. He drove trucks full of bombs from Linlithgow in Scotland to the bomber stations in the East of England. I remember him telling me how massive some of the Lancasters bombs were compared to the B17. He told me he once took a bend too quickly and lost full load of bombs off the side of his lorry, said he just closed his eyes and waited for the boom! He loved going to the US and Canadian bases as the chaps there would give and swap all sorts of things, he tasted peanut butter for the first time at a US one. As a child growing up in the 70’s when we went camping I’d sleep in an olive green sleeping bag courtesy of the USAF, we all had a bunch of itchy thin wool blankets!
He was in awe of all the lads that flew the bombers regardless of where they were from, he’d chat to them in the canteen. I remember him telling me once of a Canadian crew he had breakfast with, they gave him chewing gum, chocolate and cigarettes, he went back three days later and they were all gone, my grandad was a strong man but he struggled to say those words. Whenever I see a Lanc fly I think about this, I always find it a very emotional experience.
Its crazy to think that these lads were all in their early 20's and they were hauling these massive machines over enemy territory, full of bombs and being continuously attacked by flak and fighters planes!
It amazes me,and i have nothing but the highest respect for these chaps.
I just cant imagine a 22 yr old of today being mentally capable of doing what these lads did during the war.
I have been in the fortunate position that I have had both a Lancaster and b17 fly over my house on the way back from air shows in the UK. Both impressive aircraft.
Some you guys, give it a rest. The allies all needed each other. And, Great Britain 🇬🇧 has stood by the US and fought beside the US in every crisis since WW2. I, for one, respect them. Canada, too! 🇨🇦
Agreed.
Arguing the best comes down to picking selective criteria usually based on national pride, for a desired outcome.
As an Australian I can relate to the concept of forgotten allies.
You Aussies produced the finest soldiers in the west outside of the US, you should be proud and you've also been a stronger ally to the US than the UK. @@andrewfleming8103
@@andrewfleming8103 what? You mean the two planes, right? Not overall. There is no argument about which is best overall.
The Merlin engine was the Best prop engine in the second world war, so good it was used in the Mustang fighter.
The R2800 would like a word with you...
anthonymarch Wright and Pratt Whitney are saying HOLD MY BEER !!!!Most of the merlins used during WWII were the 20 series which were the single stage supercharged version, the 60 series was a late arrival and a wright R1830 and PW R1820 were bothe turbocharged 2 stage supercharged in B17 and B24 The Lanc had to do with a single stage supercharger 10,000Ft difference in altitude over the Lancs and merlin. Best prop????? Nope !!!
@@drm9397 R2800......Hold my beer !!!!
Napier Sabre?
They fly one of these [B-17] near Bloomington IL. I've seen it fly over my back yard. It was like an angel of freedom, slowly floating over the town.
B-17 was designed for anti-shipping and was pressed into sevice as a strategic bomber. The B-24 was the intended strategic bomber much like the Lancaster.
The B-17 just had a cooler nickname, so it gets all the press.
B-24 was the crate the B-17 came in.
Thank you for a straight forward comparison of the two iconic Allied bombers and not engaging in the silly "Which is better" nonsense, the men who flew those planes deserve better.
Comparing them is silly They both are great airplanes built during aviation's advancement Also the B 17 is not grounded. There are around 6 still airworthy Soon there will be 3 Lancasters airworthy
Brave men who got into either plane
The B-17 was also used as a Rescue Plane carrying a jettisonable lifeboat, as a water bomber to fight wildfires, and as a weather ship to track hurricanes and storms.
Well Done. RCAF also flew these. Canada still has one that flies out of The Hamilton Air Musem in Ontario Canada. An old friend, Eric Cairns was a navigator. My mentor. A gentleman. Sorely missed.
My Uncle Mick (Australian) RIP was one of the Dam Busters. He is featured in the movie.
Very cool 👍
Growing up i always thought bombers like the b17 and b29 super fortress would be colossal aircraft but when i first saw the bockscar at an aviation museum, i was legitimately shocked at how small they actually are in person
Comparing the b17 and Lancaster is an apples and oranges comparison.
Both are specialized tools with different intended use tactics.
The Lancaster was a 1941 design vs the 1935 design for the b17.
The US Forest Service used B17s as firefighters, as their heavy airframe didn't impede them from updrafts of fires and they were remarkable agile. Also there's stiff a few of them that are airworthy, the "Sentimental Journey" being a prime example.
The reason why the B-17 was armed to the teeth but had a small payload was because they flew daytime missions, meaning there was a higher chance they would be intercepted by fighters but also a higher chance that they would be able to precision bomb the target. The Lancaster flew nighttime missions, meaning they would only face night-fighters (not to mention Window helping a lot against night-fighters), but it would be hard to properly identify the target, so having a larger payload to be able to mass-bomb the area would make up for the lack of defences.
They were also designed to bomb fleet formations and fight through carrier-based aircraft, and they were designed as such long before the Lancaster; the B-17 was almost a decade old by the time the US joined WW2.
I think it's pretty clear the Lancaster was the better plane for bombing Germany in the 1940s in most important respects, but then again it really, really should have been. The B-29 didn't materialize out of thin air; it was the intended replacement for an aging platform
Disagree in the Lancaster was not designed from the outset for night bombing that is what it would develop into due to the loss rates. Even the Americans suffered huge bomber losses with the B-17 until they started providing long-range fighter escorts using drop tanks
In my opinion, the B - 17 is the most beautiful airplane ever produced
Lancasters were just as iconic as the b-17
More so I would say. The RAF tried out the B-17 and found it wanting, as they did with the Norden bombsight. They did however adopt the Consolidated B-24 Liberator for Coastal Command duties. In fact I would argue that the Consolidated B-24 Liberator is a much more important and better bomber than the B-17 was.
But like the poor old Hawker Hurricane which did most of the heavy lifting during the Battle of Britain being outshined by the Spitfire, the Consolidated B-24 Liberator was outshined by the B-17.
@@gumpyoldbugger6944the flying coffin, you mean?
@gumpyoldbugger6944 I didn't know that.
The Mosquito had a bigger bomb load than the B17. The Lancaster dwarfed both of them. The B17 was flashy but vulnerable, even with its limited bomb load out; the Lancaster was beautiful and utterly lethal
but the lancaster was less impactful on the war outcome.
The most famous B-17s that I know are: The Memphis Bell, Ye Old Pub, & Old 666
They were both great aircraft and their different capabilities allowed Germany to be combed both day and night without let up.
A Lancaster flew over my local golf course when I was playing couple years ago, amazing to see it
My stepfather served on B-17s over Germany, where they had an Army photographer onboard. The stunning pictures we still have today capture that experience. What amazed me the most was the extent of damage these B-17s could sustain and still manage to return home-unbelievable damage! May those who did not make it be remembered and rest in peace.
Liberator was more effective convoy support. Can remember reading ship's crew being so excited when liberator took station over their convoy.
Indeed, but had it not been for the political machinations of the British Air Ministry, modified British heavy bombers would have been converted to VLR aircraft much sooner.
@dovetonsturdee7033 thanks interesting 🤔
0:28 surprisingly very small amount of bomb for a bomber, really opened up my eye to how bomber were designed
It had everything to do with range. You have to sacrifice bomb load to get the ranges that the B-24 had. So why are we even discussing the B-17 again? Oh yeah, Boeing propaganda.
@@princeofcupspoc9073 The B17 was there when needed and did a job needed doing !!! In war you fight with what you have or can get real fast and the B17 and B24's B25's B26's A20's A26 and A36 were AVAILABLE and did the job !!!! Brits you are welcome did I hear a thank you ?????
@@wilburfinnigan2142don't forget boxcar and enola gay. B29s ended the war
@@princeofcupspoc9073yeah back when Boeing kicked butt. the flying fortress was built and being used ten years before the end of the war. It was an amazing plane at the time
A production B-17 could carry the largest bomb load of any bomber until the introduction of the B-29. Not sure how that is small.
Every single man who flew in these deserved to be decorated for bravery, because every single one of them knew they were going into battle EVERY mission they flew and their chances of surviving was small.
Both of them are legendary bombers. BOth helped win the war in Europe.
My father was a wireless op with 9 squadron, he and his pilot were Aussies along with 5 Brits made up their crew they all survived the war. he said the Lanc was a wonderful aircraft. it wasn't mentioned here but they also flew with a 22000-pound Grand Slam bomb, if I'm not mistaken, they were used on the successful Turpitz raid among others. RIP to all those allied airmen.
My Grandad was Squadron Leader and navigator on Lancasters with the RAF in Bomber Command during WW2. He survived the war and I had the honour meeting him on a few family gatherings. He never talked about what went down on the planes and the perils the lads faced. A glass of sherry and a huge beaming smile is how I remember him.
‘Strike Hard Strike Sure’ 617 ❤️
While I love the Lancaster having seen one fly low over me at an air show the sound of the Rolls Royce Merlin engine is an amazing sound same reason I love the Spitfire you cannot deny the impact of the B-17. both aircraft are amazing deserve recognition and their place in history
Amazing video! Fine I'll watch it first.
The Brits had a knack for making great planes that were also beautiful to look at, Lancaster, Spitfire, Vulcan, Hawker Hunter.
If your a general or air Marshall. That's directing these planes. The Lanc is the better bomber in terms of bombing capability. If you're aircrew. The 17 is the more survivable.
Really enjoyed your video. Thanks.
The Lancaster sounds the best
Ever heard it in real life? It’s amazing. Theres only two flying. One in hamilton in canada and the other in the uk.
@@brandonha - I remember hearing them at an airshow in Edmonton in my youth, in the early '80s. Pure harmony.
Saw a Lancaster in flight with a Spitfire in England years ago. I knew a Lancaster pilot from Manitoba, Canada. Jack was a great guy and avid golfer into his 90s.
@@brandonha Yup, seen it in 2023 at the airshow. Absolutely best sounding bomber. Can't compare it to Vulcan as didn't see it in flight
@@maciejszulc8019who wouldn't like the sound of 4 Rolls Merlins?
I was fortunate enough to see a Lancaster Bomber flying near to where I live last year and by strange coincidence when I was in the military back in the 80s I was based close to the Mohne Dam which was destroyed by Lancaster Bombers in 1943.
I lived in Cologne (Koln) Germany 1958-1960, (my Dad was in the RAF from 1941-1968, initially as a W.Op/Air Gunner).
The family used to go out seeing the sights at weekends and one time we ended up at the Mohne Dam. What fascinated me as a 10-year old was that the area round the dam was a busy tourist destination - shops, cafes etc!
Knowing the history of the Dam Busters I was a bit nervous about arriving and leaving in a car with British Military number plates - but we never got a glance from the Germans. Phew!
Getting this after watching Masters of Air is just feels right!
The large bomb bay, bomb load & the versatility of both in the Lancaster made it the best heavy bomber of the war. It also handled a lot better than the B-17- you could roll a Lanc! You can't do that in a Fortress. It was under gunned with only .303's but that was less of an issue at night .
The B29 would like a word with you...
@@drm9397 HOLD MY BEER, says B29...
Two of the longest surviving Lancasters were flown by Australians. G George (460 Squadron) did 90 missions and S Sugar (467 Squadron) flew 137. George (a MK1) is in Canberra at the Australian War Memorial (currently undergoing restoration work) S Sugar is in the RAF Museum in London
They were both good at what they were designed to do. However, I'd take the B-17 any day due to its much better crew protection .50 cal guns and co-pilot set up. The one, rarely discussed, success of the daylight raids was that the B-17s forced Germany to use up fuel, materiel and pilots at at rate they could not sustain. Remember, the Forts flew at altitudes circa 25000 feet and by the time the Luftwaffe fighters could intercept them, they had used most of their fuel.
Once the Mustangs appeared to escort the B-17s, even Goering admitted it was over for the Reich.
There are reasons the Lancaster could only bomb at night.
Poor armament, no crew protection and low service ceiling. The lack of belly turret and use of .303 guns meant that the German night fighters could open fire with cannons at ranges beyond the .303's maximum effective range.
Yes, the Lanc's bomb load was impressive indeed but only a small percentage of those bombs hit their intended target.
This where the term "carpet bombing" is used. Also fighter escort was impossible due to the chaos of night operations.
The U.S. adopted carpet bombing even during daylight, dropping bombs on cue from a lead bomber. The Norden bombsight in spite of its “ bomb in a pickle barrel” reputation proved in real,life to be no more accurate than simpler less costly bomb sights. The one area the b17 excelled in was its ability to absorb damage, due to the structure of the wing .
The RAF didn't have point targets but whole city blocks.
@@Tony.795 They did have individual aim points, usually target markers dropped by pathfinders. With what is called creep back each bomb Aimer tended to drop their bombs just a little before the Bomb Aimer ahead of them. This happened to all bomber forces in the war. Whole city blocks were targeted as usually the target complex was that big. From altitude hitting a singular building was and still is extremely difficult no matter how good the equipment and Bomb Aimer is which is why the use of smart bombs is today is so impressive. Remember, the bomber stream was in most cases miles wide and many miles long so everyone trying to hit a pin point target was impossible. This does not discount the intended fire bombings such as Dresden etc. The fire bombing of Tokyo was done with the very latest and greatest technology but was still just carpet bombing with the intent of widespread destruction resulting in more deaths than at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. For pin point accuracy only low level bombing, usually with a Mosquito was used, such as the Amiens prison raid or the Gestapo headquarters raid in Oslo.
@@waynemanning3262yeah could you refrain from bring up the mosquito when comparing the Lancaster to the b17. Last I checked the mosquito is not a Lancaster.
Both US and RAF bombers only had 30% bomb accuracy. The difference being the targets. RAF targeted citys with the Lancaster and the US targeted factories. Generally speaking of course. But 100% of the US bombs landed in city's.
@ I brought up the Mosquito because it was used for precision bombing because with rare exceptions the B17 and the Lancaster were not used for. As for your theory that the RAF only bombed cities while the US bombed factories very flawed! I have had the honour of knowing and being taught by many RAF and RCAF Bomb Aimers and Pilot as well as owning maps and log from a RCAF Bomb Aimer that specific targets within and outside of cities were targeted. The B17’s greatest asset was its survivability and production numbers, however the Americans produced more B24s because in spite of its well known flaws carried more tonnage per crewman to target as well as having greater range. If a bombers job is to put tons of bombs on target, whatever the target is then the B17 actually falls down the list a considerable ways. If survivability is the main concern then the B26 Marauder had the highest survivability rate of any American bombers.
I live near where the Lancaster is based in Canada, it’s so cool when ever it flies over my house
The major difference between these two aircraft is how they were utilized. The Lancaster missions were mainly flown at night whilst the Fortress was a daylight bomber.
The Fortress was a much older design than the Lancaster. Perhaps a better comparison would have been the B24 Liberator.
The comparison between the staffs of the two services was remarkable.