Rebuttal/argument
The B17 as a whole is most definitely not 'better'.
2. I didn't realise we were limited to a particular theatre of operations, I thought we were debating about the aircraft... Look at numbers of Lancasters on any one single mission. The most mustered was 796 on one mission. That is the most aircraft available to use at one single point in history. If we take into account unserviceable and training aircraft it still falls way short of most B17's available at any one time.
About numbers, you list all Lancs Vs all B-17s. Yet B-17s were used in four theaters of operations and Lancs in only one. There are many reasons why there were <800 Lancs available at any one time. They were built, used and destroyed at such a rate that less than 800 were available at any given time during the war. From your post. They were less reliable than the B-17 and had a much lower mission readiness rate than the B-17. The typical bombing altitude of American missions varied between 25,000' and 31,000'! Some at almost 35,000'. No mission was ever scheduled to operate at less than 25,000' over the target. This was the minimum altitude considered necessary to avoid the most dangerous Flack. Most Lanc missions were under 17,000' over the target, NONE were at altitudes over 25,000'! Just curious; What was the maximum number of B-17s sent on any single day against the Nazis?
3. True, but you don't state how you arrive at less than half the payload for the altitude. You're guessing, and its a bad guess. Especially when known achievements for the Lancaster stand at 22,000lbs to 16,000 feet, several times.
How does lifting 22,000 pounds to 16,000' relate to the failure to lift any weight to 30,000'? IIRC, the maximum ceiling of the loaded Lanc with 14,000 pounds of bombs up was under 19,000'? So dropping 8,000 pounds of bombs off of the manifest adds 3,000'. The secret is that the fuel for the return flight must be on the plane after it drops the bombs and thus limits the ceiling that can be reached before the bombs are dropped. The Lanc's poorly blown engines is why it has a ceiling more than 10,000' lower than the B-17! This is a function of three things; Wing Loading, L/D and available power at altitude. The B-17 was the more aerodynamic of the two planes. This is not open to debate. They both had about the same MTO of 65,000 pounds and about the same EEW. They had similar wing spans and areas, yet the B-17 was faster and longer ranged than the Lanc with LESS INSTALLED POWER! Thus it had to have a better L/D.
Go look at the NFxxx serial batch of aircraft, used by 617Sqn on the Tirpitz raid. Built by Armstrong Whitworth at Baginton, none are 'Special' aircraft. BI 'Special' aircraft were those fitted for 'Upkeep', or 'Grand Slam' weapons.
Except that they were fitted with the much more powerful version of the Merlin engine! Most Lancs did not use this engine! In my book that made them "Special"! Could that mission have been flown with the much less powerful type XX Merlin engine? Not on your life!
'Tallboy' could be carried by any normal Lancaster with bulged bomb doors and there were several production batches built that way, including a good number of the Hercules engined aircraft. I'll provide you with production figures later when I have the reference material to hand.
4. Seeing as you seem to be hung up on the Merlin XX which the Lancaster started with, then got rid of after the first BI's - lets look at your chosen in the same way.
Still waiting for you to list how many Lancs were built/retro-fitted with the RR made Merlins, Vs how many were made with American made Packard Merlins? Note that WO the exact numbers in front of me, every book I have, stated that MOST Lancs were built with Packard built Merlin engines, not RRs. Every last one of those was the American Version of the Merlin XX.
I'm happy to use limited production aircraft as examples of what the aircraft was capable of. Don't ask me for answers as to what aircraft used things if you don't want an answer you won't like. I realise you don't like this much as it makes the B17 look a little inferior, so I'll limit it to those that saw combat. To help you defend the B17, try digging up some obscure version of B17, like the 'Aphrodite' drones. They had a bit more payload but were disposable...Along those lines, except for the 33 "Specials", the maximum bomb load for the rest of the >7,000 Lancasters was 14,000 pounds! The vast majority >8,000 B-17s could carry 17,600 pounds of bombs. ( Winner= B-17)
If you want production numbers by model of Merlin, be prepared to do the same with verified sources for the B17.
5. Seeing as the Lancasters were ordered and built in batches of 300 or so, your point about limiting numbers wouldn't really make a difference. A reasonable number of BII, BIII, and BX aircraft had bulged bomb bay doors too, it wasn't just the BI. However, the limits you want to impose aren't satisfactory... you can't ignore something that actually was built and used in anger, even if in minor numbers. Its all 7,377 Lancasters compared against all 12,731 B17's or not at all.
FINE! B-17s dropped 640Kt to Lancasters 608Kt! In Europe only, the B-17s also dropped 138Kt on Japan. Does that count toward the B-17s score, or do we use only those bombs dropped on Nazi/Axis targets?
7. This is what it has to do with things - An indication of how versatile something is is how long it lasts in service, in the job it was designed to do. For instance, the B52 would not be as long lasting at its job if it were of no use. But a much more accurate assessment would be when the owners could afford to replace obviously obsolete equipment with jets!
We all know that the B17 could get up to 35,000 feet or so - but the service ceiling isn't its bombing altitude, its a measure of how high it can fly before the climb rate suffers. I can't find record of a B17 bombing anything from it service ceiling, but research suggests typically the B17 did its job at 20,000 feet. Wrong assessment! The minimum bombing altitude over Europe was 25,000'!
For higher altitudes we can bring in the B17 replacement - the B29; an altogether more worthy contestant against the Lancaster.True, but not relevant to this argument!
The 'frailty' in daylight missions is known right from the Lancaster's birth. But when you consider sheer firepower in defensive armaments (and the B17 was designed to be defensive) the Fortress was superior. 13 x .50 guns, against the Lancaster's 8 x .303 spells it out in no uncertain terms.
So very true!
Regards,
Rich
(self confessed Avro fanatic)
Regards,
Stewart
( Self confessed Strategic Bomber fanatic!)