B-17 vs Avro Lancaster

[KJ_Lesnick]

Both airplanes clearly had their own advantage in that

• The B-17's appeared to be able to fly at higher altitudes due to its turbochargers
  
• The Y1B-17A through B-17E were appeared to be faster than the Avro Lancaster (at least at full power)
  
• The B-17's generally appeared to be sturdier and more damage resistant
  
• The B-17E/F/G's all seemed to have heavier defensive armament both in number of guns and caliber
  
• The Lancaster had a significantly heavier bomb-load: Both total and the typical amount carried during the cruise; the Lancaster could also carry armament internally that the B-17 frankly could not
  
• The Lancaster had better visibility for some of it's crew due to the birdcage canopy position evidently
  
• The Lancaster appeared to be more agile than the B-17
  
• The Lancaster, even during the prototype phase, had a rear-turret: The B-17 did not have a turret until the -E model.
  

Admittedly, I am curious as to how the B-17E could outrun the Lancaster when it had more armament, and radial engines with the Avro Lancaster fitted with a streamlined inline and (presumably) radiator configuration...[/list]

[Captain Canada]

The Orenda jet powered Lancs used to wreak havoc on NYANG guard units.

Then there's the story of the B-17 that caught and passed a Lanc....until the Lanc pilot throttled up and returned the favour including a victory roll !



No contest between the 2 if you ask me.

[Logan Hartke]

I'd agree with much of that, though I've heard some pretty impressive stories about the B-17's maneuverability, especially in some of the smaller-scale encounters against the Japanese.

My personal view is that the Lancaster was the better bomber.  When it came to carrying X number of Y pound bombs Z miles, the Lancaster was the better aircraft for the job.  Since that's the primary role of the bomber, I think that makes it the better of the two.  The Lancaster could perform missions that no B-17 ever could.



Now, that having been said, you really can't go wrong with the B-17.  It had greater defensive firepower, greater survivability, and a very respectable range.  More often than any other plane from World War Two, I've heard veterans say about the B-17, "she'd bring you home."

There's a couple other things to consider.  The Boeing B-17 first flew six years before the Avro Lancaster.  Let me put that in perspective.  The first flight of the B-17 took place BEFORE the Seversky P-35.  The Avro Lancaster first flew AFTER the P-51 Mustang.  The B-17 first flew BEFORE Guernica.  The Lancaster first flew AFTER the Blitz.  That's how big of a generational gap we're talking about.  The B-17 was originally designed when the USAAC quite frankly didn't know what it wanted.  They really hadn't been involved in combat since WWI and Boeing's product had seen very little combat around the world up to that point.  In contrast, Avro aircraft hold many "firsts" from the history of aerial combat, including one of the first successful bombing raids on an enemy installation behind the front lines (the Friedrichshafen raid).  It was ordered by the most experienced air arm in the world.  The RAF had been engaged for the past year in a modern war with Germany.  They knew what they wanted and what they needed.



As a result, the B-17 needed a LOT of work before it was ready for combat.  The Model 299 prototype had about as much in common with the B-17G as the Manchester did with the Lincoln.  The B-17 had to go through at least five iterations before it was really combat-ready (the B-17E), and another two before it was "good" (the B-17G).  The Lancaster B Is, however, were still a very good bomber in 1945.

Also, the Lancaster had more horsepower available to it.  The B-17 had four R-1820s, which powered aircraft such as the DC-2, Polikarpov I-16, Dauntless, and Wildcat.  The Lancaster had four Merlins, which powered the likes of the Hurricane, Spitfire, Mosquito, and P-51 Mustang.  I can tell you which engine I'd rather have for my bomber given the choice.  The aircraft with four Merlins had better carry a greater bomb load!

Still, credit where credit is due.  The Boeing designers that came up with the Model 299 knew what they were doing.  It was a modern, sleek, adaptable, sturdy design.  Look at pictures of the Y1B-17s.  The wing, engines, cockpit, landing gear, and even fuselage contours look much as they would on the B-17G.  The B-17 was revolutionary.  They really helped create the template for heavy bombers  The DNA of greatness was there.

The Flying Fortress moniker wasn't just advertising, either.  Attacking a B-17 bomber box was not for the faint of heart.  Whenever possible, the Luftwaffe tried to focus specialized Fw 190 bomber killer squadrons with purpose built Fw 190 anti-bomber variants on the dangerous mission.  When some 109 units were thrown against them late in the war, the 109s often took severe losses.  The Lancaster's lack of a ball-turret, by comparison, made the Lancaster vulnerable to Schräge Musik equipped German night fighters for the entire war.  In fact, this significant blind spot meant that it was months before Bomber Command even realized why they were suddenly losing so many bombers.



When it comes right down to it, though, if you asked me if I'd rather have 1,000 Lancasters bomb a target or 1,000 B-17s, I'd pick the Lancasters, no question.  More tonnage, more damage.  If you asked me if I'd rather be a crewman on a Lancaster or a B-17, I'd pick the B-17, no question.  The Lancaster was fine, sturdy, reliable aircraft, but the B-17 was legendary.  Both were fine aircraft in their own right and deserve all the accolades and affection they receive.

Cheers,

Logan

[Old Wombat]

You, also, have to take into account that they were designed for different mission profiles. The B-17 was designed as a day bomber, while the Lancaster was designed as a night bomber. This is the main reason for the disparate defensive armament.

Both were designed before airborne radar was invented. So, while B-17 crews could always see their enemy approaching, the Lanc's early encounters with radar carrying nightfighters were always going to be bad until counter-measures & detection systems were developed &, even then, the process was repeated with every evolution in airborne radar. When Lanc's were fitted with effective detection systems losses dropped drastically (hence their peak-trough loss rates).

The Lanc, also, had a pretty good damage survivability record (as did the venerable Wimpy).



Guy

[albeback]

Each aeroplane should surely be judged on its own merits. Both had their good points and their bad points. I had an uncle who flew a Lancaster and was (obviously!!) lucky enough to survive the hell of the bombing campaign. He told me that crews loved the aeroplane.He described it as handling extremely well, very forgiving,very reliable and, as hard experience showed it was  very sturdy aeroplane that could take a lot of punishment and still get its crews home. He also made another interesting observation. There has been a lot of (possibly) ill informed criticism of the allegedly poor defensive armament fitted to the British heavies. David was keen to point out that experience showed most engagements at night took place at very short ranges - apparently only 200 yards or less.  Well within the effective range of the .303 Browning. It was his honest view that 4 x .303 Brownings in a rear turret firing a total of 80 rounds per second could really ruin ANYBODY's day at that distance!

I have seen it quoted by a historian ( I forget who) that basically,the Americans sacrificed bomb load for defensive armament because they tried to fight through the defences rather than avoid them. The RAF on the other hand (through bitter experience) tried to avoid the defences because they could not fight their way through them. This was not intended as a reflection on the courage of the crews but an observation based on the disastrous losses suffered by the RAF when it attempted daylight raids.

On a related note, I have also heard it stated the USAAF "precision" bombed area targets and, the RAF area bombed precision targets!  The alleged super accuracy of the American Norden bomb sight  appears to have been somewhat over stated. My understanding is that while the sight itself WAS very accurate, if you have (say) 800 B-17s (covering several square miles of sky)  all dropping their bombs together then, by definition, they will obliterate everything within the target area anyway (hopefully including the actual target!). So was it not really just daylight carpet bombing after all?

I am in no way trying to denigrate the crews by the way. I have the greatest admiration and respect for ALL of them. I simply cannot get round how these men willingly climbed into their aircraft day after day despite knowing the terrible odds they would face.

Perhaps the only real precision bombing was carried out by 9 & 617 squadrons using the SABS bombsight and 12,000lb Tallboy bombs? This was something no other aircraft (including the B-17) could undertake

[sandiego89]

. The B-17 was designed as a day bomber, while the Lancaster was designed as a night bomber.

Was the Lancaster really designed as a night bomber?  I thought it was just designed as a "bomber"- evolution from the Manchester, and was adopted for night use for better survivabilty?  I think both were designed as bombers, but in service in the European theatre the B-17 was primarily used a daylight bomber and the Lancaster was primarily used as a night bomber.  Happy to be corrected. 

I won't touch which is "better", apples and apples, some like granny smiths, some like red delicious.  Both bombers, and both apples, are good.   

[Captain Canada]

If you've ever seen both at an airshow, the Lanc wins hands down !

[The Big Gimper]

The sound of Four Merlins >>> Four R1820s. 

[Logan Hartke]

If you've ever seen both at an airshow, the Lanc wins hands down !

I've seen both in flight at airshows (and one B-17 in flight while I was just driving around).  I would debate this point.

Again, each had their own strengths and weaknesses.

Cheers,

Logan

[pyro-manic]

I think Logan's point about the time period and evolution of both designs is very important - the B-17 was developed very heavily from an initially not terribly impressive (by WWII standards) design to something very formidable. The Lancaster, being much later, had a headstart and wasn't improved anything like as much - late-war versions were pretty much the same as the initial models (bar things like the electronics fit).

About day vs night bombing: The early attempts by the RAF were disastrous, leading to the switch to night raids. If the Lancaster had been available at the time, it would also have taken heavy losses. The USAAF's day campaign was initially also extremely bloody, but it persevered with development of tactics and escort fighters to deal with the problem in a different way (numerical superiority also came into play later on).

[kitnut617]

I wonder how long this thread will last before it gets deleted ----- 

[Logan Hartke]

Why is that, Kit?

Cheers,

Logan

[kitnut617]

Robyn / Kendra, had another thread going a while ago where she was asking the same questions to comparing a B-17 to a Lanc.  It ran for quite a few pages and as far as I could see, the answers weren't going they way she expected (my opinion - I had posted a number of photos on it and other things).  Then the whole thread just disappeared ---

[Logan Hartke]

Ah, I see.  I was just wondering because I didn't think that anyone's comments were out of line at all.  I tried to be pretty fair and balanced with my assessment of the two aircraft, yet I think I came down pretty firmly on them both.

Cheers,

Logan

[Captain Canada]

At Hamilton (ON) a few years back they had a B-29, B-24, and a pair of B-17s, as well as the resident Lanc. A thunderstorm appeared, and all the Yankee bombers quickly hit the deck. Then the Lanc came thundering past the crowd in a high-winged bank....it was priceless !

The CWHM museum boys still yard that bird around the sky....and watching her taxi on the grass is also a real treat.