B-17 Flying Fortress VS. Lancaster Bomber

[@Simplehistory]

Which legendary bomber do YOU think was more impactful in WWII - the B-17 Flying Fortress or the Lancaster Bomber?

[@CristianMonserrate-wo2rk]

B-17

[@valen1655]

I think they both had their own respective impacts, but I'm just saying that because these are 2 of my favorite planes 😂

[@B17FlyingFortress]

I like both. But I guess, you know which one is my favorite :)

[@Godzilla20191]

Lancaster

[@octaviovaladaoferreirinhad2689]

Personally I think that regarding their importance, they are evenly matched, but as an aviation nerd I would love to read different opinions.

[@Zman-000]

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

[@TheD-Ham]

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 🇺🇸

[@timetraveler1973]

is going from ball to tail an upgrade or downgrade?

[@jimbotron2]

@@timetraveler1973 statistically, the tail gunners suffered a higher casualty rate, but I would not want to be in that ball turret.

[@Idonothing-jj7qe]

@@jimbotron2yeah like if the plane is shot down there is no way that the ball gunner is surviving the crash

[@MrAllenwatson]

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.

[@petersmith9470]

So was my uncle Walter, a tail end Charlie. Heroes one and all

[@anandmorris]

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.

[@matthewgillies7509]

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.

[@gumpyoldbugger6944]

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........

[@bf-696]

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.

[@louisschummer931]

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!

[@ak4710]

@@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.

[@richardwheatland827]

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.

[@Wanderer628]

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.

[@hrolfr-kraki]

^This

[@saintuk70]

The B-17 was primarily designed for day missions and was really good or useful for night missions.

[@rannyacernese6627]

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.

[@danapicray9040]

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.

[@gumpyoldbugger6944]

@@rannyacernese6627 B-17's routinely jetisoned their bombs if forced to return before reaching their target, that was the SOP of the day.

[@shrimpstonjones9778]

Nobody talks about the b-24 liberator which made a huge impact aswell and was the most produced bomber ever made

[@External2737]

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.

[@clonecommandermike332]

It was a flying coffin

[@gumpyoldbugger6944]

Poor old Liberator and Hurricane, overshadowed by the reputation of their stable mates, the B-17 and Spitfire.

[@gumpyoldbugger6944]

@@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.

[@gearheadgregwi]

Comparing a Corvette to a pickup truck. B24 was far more mass production friendly.

[@lthbxfrosty]

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.

[@mrbig4532]

He didn’t fly b-17’s in the Korean War.

[@NiaSadness]

What was his B-17 nicknamed? (Example: Begotten Jenny *source from Yarnhub on a Sherman tank*)

[@Rin_Opfor]

​@@mrbig4532There were RB17s in Korea for Three months.

[@randallturner9094]

@@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.

[@pascalabessolo5350]

​@@randallturner9094 This is how you set someone back from their certain know it all affirmations-without-facts-to-support their claims. Good job.

[@gregrtodd]

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.

[@jester5ify]

The Lancasters max bomb load was 10000kgs.

[@kyledabearsfan]

Exactly this. Its easy to compare aircraft. its not easy to compare the men that had to man it. Balls of steel for certain.

[@edwardloomis887]

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.

[@kyledabearsfan]

@@edwardloomis887 yeah, there is never a perfect comparison. But i think this one is close. I think the original poster nailed it.

[@SoloRenegade]

b-17 and Lancaster had basically the same payloads when compared apples to apples.

[@theMedicatedCitizen]

I got to work on a Lancaster restoration in Halifax a few years back. What an aircraft. Seeing it in person, knowing it's history, seeing the damage done during the war... It's really something else. Hard to explain the experience. Those crew members were made of stuff not seen today. To climb into that cramped deathtrap loaded with explosives takes some friggin courage, that's for sure.

[@gumpyoldbugger6944]

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.

[@curiousuranus810]

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.

[@jazzingpanda3190]

@@curiousuranus810yeah that’s been intentionally missed out for sure. Classic American content tbf.

[@RyanSVK]

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.

[@SoloRenegade]

B-17 could get deep into germany even without all that.

[@757Poppy]

​@RyanSVK actually the majority of Lancaster bombers were radar equipped.

[@swordsman1_messer]

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.

[@664chrisman]

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!

[@HeinzGuderian_]

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.

[@JonathanLanderos]

​@@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.

[@normanhuman114]

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.

[@harrisonnightingale6600]

I remember that. It resulted in the loss of a b 17 and p 51( I think it was a p51?) Together.

[@usernamesreprise4068]

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.

[@TheLucanicLord]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="988">16:28</a> 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.

[@andrewcombe8907]

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.

[@TheRedBaron2010]

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: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iYLIZaWlg7drhMUsi=ZIK57pagF8zt-phg C-bass Productions kzbin.info/www/bejne/ioTPpoeQfN2Xj5Isi=IY89P-GzIy8Ukv6L NEVER2YUNG4AVIETNAMFLASHBACK: kzbin.info/www/bejne/lZ3TamCZg8SCpcksi=MmXkPJXg24jWhR-qOn

[@JacobBite]

Pretty sure they already have. Even if they haven't Yarnhub has like two vids of it.

[@kevindavidson8802]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/pZuYnGtvltp9aKc Starts at about 3:45

[@TheRedBaron2010]

@ I’m talking about a full video about this.

[@Liquidmetal6661]

"No Bullets Fly"

[@mississaugaicedogs]

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

[@mrjockt]

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.

[@basilreid257]

Woah I knew none of this thanks for the inspiration 👍🏻

[@mrmeme9105]

Lancasters were just as iconic as the b-17

[@gumpyoldbugger6944]

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.

[@gabe75001]

@@gumpyoldbugger6944the flying coffin, you mean?

[@mrmeme9105]

@gumpyoldbugger6944 I didn't know that.

[@chrishalstead4405]

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

[@SoloRenegade]

but the lancaster was less impactful on the war outcome.

[@DavidRichardson153]

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.

[@brettcoster4781]

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 they 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.

[@xonox_868]

My great uncle was a Lancaster Navigator Gunner 428 Ghost Squadren RCAF

[@mississaugaicedogs]

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

[@dtpc191991]

Mine flew them. He was killed in action, sadly.

[@xonox_868]

@@dtpc191991 Mine aswell gardening the channel

[@ABLYamimash3]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="676">11:16</a> 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!

[@antonnurwald5700]

Same

[@Cheezdealer]

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!

[@Styphon]

One thing that the B-17 has over the Lanc is it was featured in a segment of the animated movie "Heavy Metal". The unfortunate crew truly had a "one way ticket to ride".

[@michaelbenjmitchell1]

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.

[@arkwill14]

One small critique - at <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="158">2:38</a> 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.

[@trex9368]

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.

[@B17FlyingFortress]

I like both. But I guess, you know which one is my favorite :)

[@jakeday1998]

The Handley Halifax?

[@B17FlyingFortress]

@ Short Stirling

[@batalorian7997]

Is it the Lancaster?

[@dgrmn12345]

The Crop Duster? Hehw

[@Malaysian_Diesel_Productions]

r/usernamechecksout

[@theobster]

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.

[@cpfpv6410]

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

[@montyzumazoom1337]

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

[@envitech02]

The B17 came into great numbers just as WWII started. It had its Goldilocks moments, just perfect for its role in WWII.

[@tyo8663]

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 .

[@drm9397]

The B29 would like a word with you...

[@stephenoneill245]

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".

[@vonsauerkraut]

Yes in Dresden 30,000 Women and children senselessly murdered in the last weeks of war.

[@DavVT04]

Harris was a war criminal.

[@clivestainlesssteelwomble7665]

It's a biblical Quote Hosea 2.. He who sows the wind will reap the whirlwind.... It's in Harris's autobiography.

[@vonsauerkraut]

@clivestainlesssteelwomble7665 Did these women and children do that that is just enough stupid answer

[@stuartlynn-q8q]

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

[@B.a.k.e.d.b.e.a.n.s.]

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

[@vulture3874]

At the Imperial War Museum?

[@stephenclarke4675]

But only one pilot.

[@AJ-HLancasterBomber]

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

[@HeinzGuderian_]

How accurate is this new bomb sight? It can hit Earth. Perfect.

[@waynemathias8074]

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.

[@tamkin007]

Both done the job and had very very brave crew who lost so many.

[@stephenpitul4025]

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.

[@_gungrave_6802]

Shame you didn't cover the Norden Bomb sight in greater detail. Its use by the US involved a serious amount of corruption that resulted in the US military adopting it into service. It was the worst bomb sight of the war and the US had other companies making bomb sights that were far more accurate.

[@armchairgeneralissimo]

It's not the worst bomb sight but it was no where near as good as the US made it out to be, also they were not a secret as the Germans had the plans to make them by 1938. The only reason the Germans didn't make them was because they saw no notable improvements over their own domestic bombsights that would warrant retooling factories to produce them.

[@Muhammads_pork_chops]

American corruption led to inferior equipment? Well who'd have thunk it...

[@TheHarvHR]

Glad someone mentioned it as the Norton myth is still widely believed today. It certainly wasn't the worst bomb sight of the war, but it wasn't great either and certainly wasn't what it claimed to be. The Germans and British had equivalent accuracy systems, and the SABS bombsight used by specific lancasters for precision bombing (grand slam, tallboy, etc) was far superior. Ultimately accuracy of bomb sight doesn't particularly matter in night time bombing for the Lanc or daytime bombing for the B-17 where only the lead in a formation would aim and the rest would just drop at the same time.

[@kernuba3916]

B-17F is my favorite prop driven bomber.

[@calneigbauer7542]

B-36

[@superliogaming]

@@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)

[@GaryGoldbaugh]

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!

[@cjanquart]

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.

[@thomasmolloy5447]

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.

[@bulganzi]

You can imagine my surprise the past summer when I was driving to an appointment, I saw this massive lumbering plane flying right toward me, passing overhead. It was a Lancaster on its landing approach for the cross country tour. It was an amazing sight, and to see it at such a low altitude and speed was so neat. I was in the right place at the right time.

[@piobmhor8529]

The RCAF flew Lancasters in the photo reconnaissance, mapping, maritime patrol, as well as search and rescue until 1964.

[@steve-qc8hd]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="376">6:16</a> Standard German Falk guna such as 8.8cm flak 18 10.5cm FlaK 39 and 12.8cm flaK 40 had two sighting controllers both faced the main cradle, at 90° to the barrel (no-one sat facing the direction to the target, both the sighting crew read indicators wired to the gun from the central fire control, and in effect followed the pointer on the Ubertragung 30 or 37, there were direct sights for ground use for example against tanks and others for indirect fire ground fire, but direct sights weren't generally used in A/A role -it was pointless and a waste of ammunition and barrel life. As to the loader -no -one would take ammunition from a case and ram it into the gun, a shell has to be set, sometimes on older guns by the loader with a spanner, but most often by using a fuse setter, these were so old school by WW2 even some pre WW1 gun like the French 75 of 1897 had one attached to the limber, and all the large FlaK guns had them as standard, for example in the 88, it was on the cradle to the left and forward of the breech, the shell nose was put into it vertically and a small motor would drive the fuze mechanism to give a time to burst setting which was also wired to the gun by the central control of the gun battery. only then would the loader put the shell in the rammer, again in the 88 this was the on the gun slide.

[@misterramon7447]

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.

[@86daniel]

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.

[@Shadowheat26]

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.

[@danielschneider8101]

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

[@b1laxson]

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

[@bundywaters5988]

I love how gung-ho the B-17 narration is compared to how dry and dull the Lancaster narration is.

[@First_Sea_Lord_Ford]

The Lancaster sounds the best

[@brandonha]

Ever heard it in real life? It’s amazing. Theres only two flying. One in hamilton in canada and the other in the uk.

[@neilpk70]

@@brandonha - I remember hearing them at an airshow in Edmonton in my youth, in the early '80s. Pure harmony.

[@helenjones4550]

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.

[@maciejszulc8019]

@@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

[@kristoffermangila]

​@@maciejszulc8019who wouldn't like the sound of 4 Rolls Merlins?

[@simonmcleish2703]

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 😆

[@iiiiiiiiii5019]

A video about DeHavilland Mosquito bomber would interesting considering the fact it was the first stealth bomber.

[@gumpyoldbugger6944]

Not really....it was fast, but it was not stealthy by any stretch of the imagination. If any WWII aircraft is worthy of being called the first stealth bomber, it would have to be the Horten Ho 229 prototype flying wing. It was apparently found to invisible to the radars of the day when tested.

[@dannyzero692]

@@gumpyoldbugger6944 to be fair we are talking about WW2 era RADAR technology here. A lot of claims were made, and the Ho 229 did had the general shape but calling it stealthy on RADAR would've been stretching the definition. A few tweak to the right frequency and the Ho 229 can be detected even with WW2 era RADARs technology

[@notbobrosss3670]

It wasn't stealthy, and no, the Horten wasn't either. Despite what is said, the Ho was tested, and no, it was just as detectable by Rader as the mosquitoe was. Which was comparable to any other WW2 aircraft of similar size in terms of their Rader return.

[@jamesb7415]

It is "stealth" due to being made primarily out of wood. Radar reflects off of metal. Hence why the unarmed Mosquito did such a great job as a bomber in ww2.

[@dannyzero692]

@@jamesb7415 that’s a myth, wood also reflects off radar as well albeit to a lesser degree. If wood really reflects Radar we would’ve returned to making paper planes already.

[@anthonymarch-ti1fq]

The Merlin engine was the Best prop engine in the second world war, so good it was used in the Mustang fighter.

[@drm9397]

The R2800 would like a word with you...

[@donrobinson6613]

No mention of the Lancaster being able to carry the 12,000 pound Talboy & 22,000 pound Grandslam bombs.

[@CIMAmotor]

And the atom bomb. They were prepared for the Hiroshima attack.

[@roboroberts1246]

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.

[@blackwell68]

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.

[@peashooterc9475]

B-24 was the crate the B-17 came in.

[@alimzazaz]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="28">0:28</a> surprisingly very small amount of bomb for a bomber, really opened up my eye to how bomber were designed

[@floyd8740]

The development of these bombers stems from two opposing doctrines developed in the inter-war period. One doctrine, favoured by the USA and Germany, held that a sufficiently armed bomber would be impervious to fighters. This doctrine had it’s roots in the WW1 era, where aircraft were slower, and fighters were relatively poorly armed. This doctrine led the Germans to produce bombers that were typically smaller, more manoeuvrable, and more headily armed. It’s one of the reasons that the Germans lost the Battle of Britain. Their bombers were devastated by the British fighters and the early war German fighters were no match for the Spitfire. In America, this led o the development of the Flying Fortress, a bomber they believed could protect itself from the fighters of the day. The British however came much earlier to the understanding that turrets were no match for a fast, manoeuvrable, and heavily armed fighter. They believed that bombers needed to be protected, either by superior fighters, or by flying at night and at high altitude. The use of smaller bombs and payloads, required greater accuracy by the B-17. Necessitating daylight bombing at relatively low altitude. It’s also theorised that “political” considerations played a part. The Americans were possibly more focussed on accurately hitting only designated military targets. The British, having already endured the indiscriminate bomber of their cities, as well as terror weapons such as the V1 and V2, were willing to use bigger but less accurate bombs.

[@dapper189]

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.

[@edwardloomis887]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="250">4:10</a> the B-17 ball turret graphic shows the gunner's legs outside the gun. In reality, the gunner's legs were between and protected from the sides by the guns (an M-2 machine gun receiver is a big, heavy chunk of steel). The gunner also had some limited armor protecting his back.

[@fishfuxors]

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.

[@pjnealon3476]

Really enjoyed your video. Thanks.

[@glennmiddleton5634]

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!

[@sgt_slobber.7628]

B 17: Armed to the TEETH!!!! (Hence the name Flying Fortress) Lancaster: Less armed but can carry more Bombs!!!! That’s the main difference!!!!:):)

[@SoloRenegade]

Lancaster and B-17 carried basically the same paylaods. they both have very comparable max loads.

[@garthtomlinson2570]

@@SoloRenegadeyou got any sources for that as from what I can see. The average mission payload of a b17 was 4000lb whereas the Lancaster was 9100lb

[@antoniogivaldri5184]

@@SoloRenegade My dude did you even watch the video?

[@-triumphgt667]

@@SoloRenegade The Lancaster carried the Grand Slam earth quake bomb - 22,000lbs. No other bomber of the time could carry this.

[@SoloRenegade]

@@-triumphgt667 B-29 carried 2x Grand Slams. Cope

[@gerardoshaughnessy1924]

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.

[@swisstraeng]

Amazing video! Fine I'll watch it first.

[@mrsillywalk]

The comparison between the staffs of the two services was remarkable.

[@notbobrosss3670]

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.

[@John-rn1nm]

"They have sowed the wind and now they reap the whirlwind" General Arthur Bomber Harris

[@edwardpate6128]

They were both great aircraft and their different capabilities allowed Germany to be combed both day and night without let up.

[@ampeater777]

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

[@zangrygrapes4571]

This is gonna trigger some Brits but I would rather fly the B17 rather than the lancaster because the b17 had higher crew survivability than the lancaster

[@adriangoodrich4306]

It won't, because you are correct. As an Air Marshall, for the war in Europe most times (unless you had heavy US long-range fighter support) you'd prefer a squadron of Lancasters. But as a Squadron Leader, you'd prefer to fly in the B17.

[@eddhardy1054]

But didn't the USAAF negate that crew survivability with their insistence on daytime raids?

[@meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee2]

Did the narration not suggest that B!7 crews on average were shot down after 11 missions, while Lancaster crews managed 21. So there is a trade off between how difficult it is to bail out and if you need to do it in the first place.

[@kimbaldunsmore4633]

What is omitted here is why the US deployed their aircraft by day and the RAF by night. l believe that l read once that this was because of an edict by the US command that night flying was too dangerous. Whether that was because of the B17's design and capabilities or simply an opinion by senior command, l don't know. But for obvious reasons, flying by day in plain sight must have been pretty buttock clenching. For night flying by the RAF there were more technical challenges such as navigation and target identification. The latter required some innovation to overcome, but a solution came with low level 'pathfinder' sorties by low level fast aircraft like the Mosquito to mark targets with flares or other incendiary devices. Anyways these were very brave blokes on all sides doing this extremely dangerous work, and they deserve to be remembered. Lest we forget.

[@bluntcabbage6042]

The reasons why the Army Air Corps flew its bombing raids during the day instead of night is often argued. A common explanation is the existence of the Bomber Mafia, or a sizeable portion of the Air Corps' brass, that believed daytime raids were better for hitting the intended target and more reliable navigation - as well as the idea that the problems of daytime raids (more effective enemy defenses etc.) can be counteracted by deploying sufficiently large numbers of bombers.

[@Tony.795]

@@bluntcabbage6042 The Schweinfurt- Regensburg missions proved that they needed escorts. In the WW2 The air war documentary series a former gunner tells the interviewer that the kill numbers of gunners were grossly exagerrated and it was almost impossible to hit fighters in reality. But at that time the priority somewhat shifted to luring out and destroying german fighters out in preparation for the invasion and that had to be done with daytime raids.

[@bluntcabbage6042]

@@Tony.795 You speak as though I am arguing against that at all. I am simply explaining the prevailing belief of US decision makers of the time.

[@mcribbs]

Not true that the airworthy 17s have been grounded. There are still B17s flying today and you can get a ride on one.

[@crakkbone]

Nope. The air show crash grounded the remaining B-17’s.

[@davidcarter5038]

@@crakkbone I'm pretty sure I saw Sally B flying in September at the Battle of Britain air show at Duxford

[@crakkbone]

@ I just said you didn’t, though. You saw nothing.

[@COOL_CANADIAN]

An early attempt was the Mk. XI, which mounted a cut-down CSBS on the front of a gyro unit taken from a Sperry Gyroscope artificial horizon. Sperry gyroscope was founded by Elmer Ambrose Sperry who is most famously known for boat gyroscopes. But little do people know he discovered that if you pulse high voltage of electricity through a railway, you can find defects in the rail. I know this because i worked for Sperry Rail Services. Boats, planes, trains and automobiles.

[@samreid6010]

While it’s true that Lancasters were more survivable than B-17s, it’s worth stating that that’s due to doctrinal differences, not the planes themselves. The Lancaster was a nighttime bomber, and was thus harder to intercept or hit with flak. This made it more survivable, but it heavily degraded its mission effectiveness. Many Lancaster crews would freely admit that they had only the vaguest idea where they were and the only way to reliably destroy a target was to saturate that area with so much ordnance that every building in the zip code was flattened

[@datcheesecakeboi6745]

uh.. b17 crews didnt know what they were hitting at all tho despite having day time operations? only the lead b17 knew what it was hitting, the lancaster was much more accurate as well.. it didnt use the sh*tty norden and had ground radar

[@timmytwodogs]

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.

[@waynemanning3262]

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 .

[@Tony.795]

The RAF didn't have point targets but whole city blocks.

[@deathmourne1]

My grandfather flew both during WWII during bombing missions over France and Germany. he flew medium bombers as well.

[@zdan420]

Been waiting for this video for a long time

[@laernulienlaernulienlaernu8953]

Those guys in the ball turrets! 😬

[@bradenhagen7977]

Highest survival rate of any position. 8th even documented it. Wait gunners were MUCH MUCH more likely to be killed or injured. (Even Accounting for the 2 waist gunners)

[@ni1469]

It’s always a sad day when such an iconic piece of history is grounded. I do like that UK does tributary flights and when the kids are off to college I think I’ll add one of those to the itinerary for when my wife and I go to visit Europe and Australia

[@harry9392]

The merlin engine that came from the US were British designed and made for Roles Royce under licence, by different us companies

[@epicdynasty13]

My grandfather was as a tail gunner in a Lancaster bomber throughout WW2. He passed away in 2009. The one thing I remember him telling me from his experience growing up was that for a tail gunner, once engaged in combat, their life expectancy was approx. 3 seconds…

[@epicdynasty13]

*Fun fact* I also live in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada which if I believe to still be true has one of, if not the only remaining operational Lancaster Bomber.

[@ayubriskywicaksana6879]

B-17 or Lancaster? Me: B-29

[@kristoffermangila]

Aye, the -29 was the ultimate WW2 bomber: more bomb capacity, flying higher than either the Lanc or the Flying Forts and more technically advanced than either.

[@gumpyoldbugger6944]

@@kristoffermangila And suffered more losses due to onboard engine fires then to enemy action. Plus its development was more expensive then even the Manhatten Project that developed the A-bomb. It actually took the Soviet reverse engineering the B-29's that were force to divert to Russian due to battle damage to correct the overheating flaw in the B-29 to stop in bursting into fire when they made their unauthorized copy, the TU-4.

[@richardwheatland827]

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.

[@Ohmygodstfu2045]

In the end both were good for what they did B-17- day Lancaster- night

[@ilfarmboy]

with a modification the Lancaster could carry the 22,000 lbs grand slam bombs

[@shawnr6117]

Yes, I was going to say that too

[@apocalypticweasel9078]

The Lancaster was also on standby to drop the bomb of all bombs 2 of which were dropped on Japan, the B-29 had a bulk head that needed to be removed and modified to allow space for the bombs.

[@jonathandeschenes2973]

Pretty sure this is an old video just edited and updated

[@ElSendler]

Yeah, they stuck two old videos together. I expected a direct conparison. This is kinda lame

[@apedley]

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.

[@Conandraws]

The ball turret was a death sentence.

[@CrotalusKid]

Data doesn't reflect this. That position had one of if not THE the lowest casualty rate

[@richardstephens5570]

The waist gunners actually suffered the highest casualty rates on B-17's. The bombardier in the nose was the second most dangerous position, followed by the navigator at number three. One of the worst things about the ball gunner position is that they couldn't wear parachutes inside the turret.

[@Palimbacchius]

There's a fine poem by Randall Jarrell called "The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner": From my mother’s sleep I fell into the State, And I hunched in its belly till my wet fur froze. Six miles from earth, loosed from its dream of life, I woke to black flak and the nightmare fighters. When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose.

[@mrjockt]

I’m surprised that Boeing didn’t follow Consolidated’s idea of making the ventral turret retractable.

[@simonwaugh5519]

Which was more impactful? IMHO it's impossible to say, and not worth arguing. B-17 was produced in greater numbers, so that can be regarded as an offset to the Lancaster's larger payload and greater range. A note about the US production of Merlin engines: The MOD approached Ford to mass-produce the Merlin. Henry Ford Junior thought it was good business (particularly as the US was STILL suffering from high unemployment as a consequence of the Great Depression) but Henry Ford Senior turned down the proposal, despite it being worth well over $1 Billion ( in 2008 dollars IIRC), because Ford Senior was a major Anti-Semite and consequently thought Hitler was an 'okay dude'. The contract went to Packard instead. Related to that, and to the attrition of bombers in general, the MOD came to realize the need for a long-range fighter escort, and issued an open RFP to US aircraft manufacturer, to see what they could come up with. North American responded with a prototype in record time ( a few months IIRC) and delivered a couple of examples to the RAF for testing and evaluation. An RAF test pilot reported that the airframe itself was very good, but the performance of its American (Wright?) engine wasn't and he suggested fitting it with a Merlin. Ta-da!...the P-51 Mustang was created.

[@raulduke6105]

.303 way to light

[@sshep86]

More ammo capacity though.

[@craigthornton3285]

i have always loved the Lanc after watching the Dambusters (617 SQN) . Then reading about 617 sqn and the missions they flew being 1 of only 2 SQN`s that used the Grand Slam also called earthquake bombs

[@Minong_Manitou_Mishepeshu]

B-17 looks far more modern and advanced.

[@gumpyoldbugger6944]

Looks are deceiving. Compare the B-24 to the Lanc, they both share a simular design philosophy.

[@crakkbone]

The Lancaster does have an odd “old-timey” look to it,somehow.

[@gumpyoldbugger6944]

@@crakkbone Then the same could be said of the B-24 Liberator which shared much the same design cues and philosophy of the Lanc, and the Liberator some five or so year after the B-17.

[@crakkbone]

@@gumpyoldbugger6944 I’d have to look it up, but maybe. Old Soviet planes always looked goofy and a 100 years older then they really were 😅

[@gumpyoldbugger6944]

Addendum: And when you think about it, even the B-52 shares much the same design features as the Lanc and B-24, high wing, multi-engined, box type fuselage, but with only one vertical stabilizer instead of two.

[@johnrudy9404]

One of the initial deadly flaws, was the vertical stabilizer separation. Notice how early models did not have the long dorsal fin.

[@SucharithaSamarasekara]

ngl the b17 is better but the lancaster looks badass

[@datcheesecakeboi6745]

the b17 wasnt better, it wasnt even the best US Bomber, just the most famous

[@SucharithaSamarasekara]

@@datcheesecakeboi6745 i mean the b17 did have a good range and playload not the best

[@andywilliams7323]

Not so. The B17 Flying Fortress was only better than the Lancaster in defensive armament and successful crew bail-out percentage. In absolutely everything else, the Lancaster far outclassed the B17. The principal reason for this is that the Lancaster is a significantly more modern bomber than B17. The Lancaster began development in 1940 and entered service in 1942, whereas the B17 began development in 1934 and entered service in 1937. By the time the US entered the air war in Europe in mid-1942, the B17 was an old bomber. It's exactly the same story with the B24 Liberator. Just like the Lancaster, the B24 far outclassed the B17 in everything except defensive armament and successful crew bailout percentage. Again, this is because the B24 is significantly more modern than the B17. The B24 began development in 1939 and entered service in 1941.

[@SucharithaSamarasekara]

@@andywilliams7323 ok chill i surrender the lancaster is better respect your time to write this.😅😅yes the b17 was older than the lancaster too i forgot that part.......