@Simplehistory

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

@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

@shrimpstonjones9778

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

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@Kneedragon1962

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.

@nawyecannae53

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.

@reldoc

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.

@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!

@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.

@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.

@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 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.

@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.

@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.

@nicholasmoore2590

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.