What was the best heavy bomber of these two?

Question

Lancaster or B-17?

Please tell which country you are from!

Hey...I said please tell me where you live! I reckon Brits will vote Lanc, Americans B 17.

Oh, and I`m an Aussie, by the way. I know both countries revere these bombers, and rightly so.

Answer 1

The best heavy bomber of the two was the one that could be produced in the greatest quantities at any given time.
Stalin (I think) said it best--"quantity has a quality all of its own".

I'm an American.

Answer 2

I'm assuming the other two people were Americans!!

As I'm a Brit I have to go with the Lancaster, of course! To be of any use as a 'heavy' strategic bomber an appreciable bomb load needs to be carried at a decent range; the sad fact is that, when raiding into Germany, the B-17 was reduced to a 'tactical' load of only 4000lb of bombs; incidentally, that is the same bombload as the Mosquito at that range, which could do the job more accurately and more efficently than the Fort. Over those same distances the Lancaster could carry a load of 14000 lb; incidentally, the maximum bomb loads carries were 8000lb for the B-17 and 22000lb for the Lancaster!

The night bombing/day bombing argument is one of tactics rather than capability. The RAF largely gave up daylight raids after experiencing heavy losses earlier in the war; the USAAF chose to bomb by day, in tight well-armed formation and (sometimes) with the benefit of a long-range fighter escort which was certainly not available to the RAF earlier in the war. In any case the losses, by day or night, were equally horrific.

As for accuracy, that was a relative term in those days. The USAAF was realistically no more, or less, accurate than the RAF. Although I don't think the USAAF ever managed to destroy any dams, even during the day!!

So which was the better bomber? The Lanc, of course; but then, to be fair, it was a more modern bomber than the pre-war B-17. Now, if you'd asked about the B-29 ........

Answer 3

B-17

Answer 4

I'm an American so I've got to say the B-17, of course. The Lancaster wasn't capable of hitting their assigned targets during daylight raids, so was assigned to less dangerous night missions, while the B-17 went on to destroy Germany's war industry with precision daylight bombing, and was a huge factor in bringing the war in Europe to an end.

To King Richard... That was the B-25 Mitchell bomber, not the B-17 Flying Fortress

Answer 5

Firstly, a lesson in British English and American English:

There is no BEST of two alternatives; there might be a BETTER one. Then, again, there might not.
BEST is used for three or more possible choices.

Secondly, you are implying that our nationality would color (or colour) our selection of bomber. I won't argue the case, but it's my opinion that our nationality would be a factor in our RECOGNIZING the nomenclature, B-17 and Lancaster.

Conclusion: You've got to BE from Lancaster to APPRECIATE a Lancaster.

PS: I'm from Pennsylvania, on the opposite end of the State from LANCASTER, PA.

Answer 6

I'm in the US.
Lancasters carried a lot more and heavier bomb loads. They also carried a twin canon in the back end. It had widder wings.

The B-17's were easier to produce, you could actually get out if it was striken (unlike the Lancasters, the crews went down with the plane). Carried more defensive weapons, and they were easier to handle. The Lancasters were temperamental, always fighting with the handling.

Overall, the B-17 were a better plane, better aerodinamics package, it took more damage, it brought its crew home more often and when stricken the crew actually could bail out. More B-17's were manuf. 'cause they were easier but sturdier all around.

Besides B17s were sexier and prettier to look at, don't you agree.

Answer 7

Lancaster - it can carry a far heavier bomb load than the B17, faster and is far more manouverable, and as for night bombing, this was a decision made by air ministry for mission survivability, not because of the aircraft itself. It was actually capable of flying in daylight in case any of our american cousins think it can't. It required a crew of seven, not 10 as did the 17, and was the only bomber in the European Theatre of Operations; capable of carrying the Tallboy and Grand Slam bombs, which destroyed the U boat pens and the Ruhr Valley.

Roy Chadwick was a genius.

Of course i'm British.

Answer 8

Belgium
the Lancaster it had the biggest bombay and you could put the most variant bomload in it from the grand slam to the bouncing boms that destroyed the dams on the roer. The British made also by day bomingruns with the Lancaster.
I most say the day bombardments of the American air fleet weren't always very accurate , there are dozens of examples where thy completely mist there target and destroyed a village nearby and the target remains unharmed

Answer 9

i'm british and its difficult.

the Lancaster was a useful and fit for purpose kinda bomber.

the B-17 could probably do more if ya see what i mean.

i'd probably say the Lancaster becasue my Granddads told me some great stories about them.

btw, your prediction seems to be panning out quite well. lol

Answer 10

I'm from Canada, the B-17 was better because it was a tough bird. It would still make it home after heavy flak, getting its nose blown off , tail shot off, engines taken out. It got shot to hell and would make it back. Also it had a sperry ball turret, so it couldn't get jumped by fighters.