But this argument is being fought with apples Vs oranges. The Lancaster was a good plane. I have never disputed that. It was just not as good as the B-17. ( From some mission profiles and points of view!)
If we specify the bombing altitude to be above 25,000' then the Lancaster numbers start to look a whole lot less impressive. If we specify longer ranges, bomb loads go down. That is a fact of life for every single plane ever made! If we specify day light missions, then the Lancaster's frailty seems down right desperate.
If we consider that the RAF stipulated that more than half of all bombs dropped at night landed OUT SIDE of the target city limits! All of those bombs were thus wasted and the figures must be adjusted; 604,000 tons, more than half of which missed, then 304,000 tons of bombs is the BEST POSSIBLE EFFECTIVE fire power. 304,000 tons divided by 156,000 missions gives just under 3,900 pounds of EFFECTIVE bombs per sortie.
While many bombs dropped by B-17s/24s and other missed their targets, no one on the planet will state that more than a few percent of those misses landed so far away from the target as to miss the entire city! On the other hand, no one has ever shown a picture of a rail yard with over 1,000 bomb craters inside the fence dropped by Lancasters. Under that exact same definition of "Bombs inside the city limits", then the average from B-17s is far higher!
