The "oft overshadowed" Lancaster?

[AnotherFSO]

There's an American fellow who has a fabulous podcast series on his YouTube channel where he interviews military pilots. I'm not able to post the link, but you may know of it -- it's a great channel.

His episode 110 from August last year features the Lancaster -- good stuff. But it is described as the "oft overshadowed Avro Lancaster".

Overshadowed? Really? Really? I know there were lots of important bombers during WWII, but to my mind at least the Lancaster is *the* most iconic WWII bomber of them all.

What does everyone else think?

[India Four Two]

Here's the link:

https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/110-avro-lancaster/

Given that the podcast is American and aimed at American listeners, I think the "oft overshadowed" comment is not particularly surprising.

I agree with AnotherFSO - it's a great channel. I recommend 125 on the Buccaneer, 132 on the Lightning and 133 on the Jaguar.

[PAXboy]

The Americans may reckon the B-17 as the foremost. Our most overshadowed is the Hurricane.

[Pypard]

There is a tendency to title YouTube videos, "The forgotten..." or "The xxx that no-one's heard of". It's a form of clickbait for some I'm sure, but for me it's an instant pass.

[Dan Winterland]

The Lancaster mostly flew at night. Therefore, no shadows!

[pax britanica]

Dab has the best answer but if its US media then the B17 is The WW2 bomber and then the B29 due to A bomb fame., although IIRC there were more B24 Libs built than B17s . The only Brit plane they have heard of is the Spitfire which was rather like David Beckham of fighters , looked great and got all the glory in Battle Britain while the Hurricanes did most of the work.. Thats not to demean the Spit which was a brilliant deign and wonderfully adaptable but still heavily outnumbered by Hurricanes i think in 1940

[GeeRam]

The Americans may reckon the B-17 as the foremost.

Foremost 4-engine medium bomber perhaps..... :E

[Sue Vêtements]

In fairness, if it's an American point of view then it's to be expected and we probably have similar biases

Having said that, operating at night doesn't make for great theatre, whereas colour photos and films of huge box formations of B17s with all the contrails behind them, and the combat footage to go with them does

Plus let's face it, the B17 looks like a film star, which is not to take anything away from the Lancaster, but in some cases looks count as much or more than capability (think your secretary and your wife)

[Doctor Cruces]

In fairness, if it's an American point of view then it's to be expected and we probably have similar biases

Having said that, operating at night doesn't make for great theatre, whereas colour photos and films of huge box formations of B17s with all the contrails behind them, and the combat footage to go with them does

Plus let's face it, the B17 looks like a film star, which is not to take anything away from the Lancaster, but in some cases looks count as much or more than capability (think your secretary and your wife)

Especially if you're an American making progs for American audiences. Anything that aint American aint as good as anything American.

[rolling20]

Don't forget the RAFs use of the B17 C was deemed a failure.

[Sue Vêtements]

Don't forget the RAFs use of the B17 C was deemed a failure.

Wikipedia shows only 38 Cs were made as opposed to over 3000 Fs and nearly 9000 Gs, so I guess you could say the C was not a success in any air force


Can you image a whole wing of them flying overhead?

[Asturias56]

"Plus let's face it, the B17 looks like a film star"

Boris Karloff? - the B-29 is stunning but the -17? bits sticking out all over the shop.

The Lancaster looks like a garden shed, the Whitley ...clearly someone got something wrong, the Liberator looks like a door man in Newcastle Bigg Market on a Saturday night...........

The He111 looked good tho'

[Load Toad]

Don't forget the RAFs use of the B17 C was deemed a failure.
No, it wasn't suitable in that version for what RAF Bomber Command wanted (flying higher, at night). Other versions did perfectly OK in electronic warfare and air sea rescue and meteorological service. They were also perfectly OK for Coastal Command.

[DHfan]

No, it wasn't suitable in that version for what RAF Bomber Command wanted (flying higher, at night). Other versions did perfectly OK in electronic warfare and air sea rescue and meteorological service. They were also perfectly OK for Coastal Command.

So - no good as a bomber, which is what it was supposed to be.

[Herod]

The Lancaster looks like a garden shed

May be, but a darn effective garden shed.

[Load Toad]

So - no good as a bomber, which is what it was supposed to be.
No, Not good as a bomber in the roll the RAF wanted a bomber to operate in; night flying, at height...not part of self protecting combat boxes flying at lower levels during daylight which the RAF had decided wasn't practical

[rolling20]

No, Not good as a bomber in the roll the RAF wanted a bomber to operate in; night flying, at height...not part of self protecting combat boxes flying at lower levels during daylight which the RAF had decided wasn't practical
Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. The RAF used the Fortress for high altitude DAYLIGHT bombing and it was a dismal failure.

[Brewster Buffalo]

.....The RAF used the Fortress for high altitude DAYLIGHT bombing and it was a dismal failure.
Daylight operations commenced in July 1941 and ceased in September 1941 after 51 sorties of which about 24 were regarded as effective.
The remaining B-17s were passed to Coastal Command.

[Load Toad]

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. The RAF used the Fortress for high altitude DAYLIGHT bombing and it was a dismal failure.
Quite clearly you are the absolute expert but you didn't read what I wrote.

[megan]

The RAF used the Fortress for high altitude DAYLIGHT bombing and it was a dismal failureTactics were part of the problem, the first raid was by three aircraft and those that followed were mostly by individual aircraft, problems were had with guns freezing at altitude, issues with the Sperry bomb sight, no rear defensive armament. Between the aircrafts initiation 8 July and removal from the bombing role 26 September they flew 26 raids, 51 sorties, of which 25 had been aborted with no bombs dropped. Of the 50 tons of bombs dropped only one ton is estimated to have hit the target, eight aircraft lost - one undercarriage collapse on landing (aircraft cannibilised for spares), one aircraft disintergrating on touch down due combat damage, one accidentally burnt on the ground, three destroyed by fighters on Norway raid, one lost on high altitude test, one appeared in a vertical dive from cloud into the ground. Aborts due aircraft unservicabilities seem to back up the USA advice that the aircraft was not yet ready for service.

[Prangster]

No, it wasn't suitable in that version for what RAF Bomber Command wanted (flying higher, at night). Other versions did perfectly OK in electronic warfare and air sea rescue and meteorological service. They were also perfectly OK for Coastal Command.
Straight from the horses mouth. My stepfather, on his so called rest tour flew with I think 90 squadron testing the B17C for the RAF. As he'd just staggered off a Hampden tour (Hampers ex Scampers) he called it the B17C was a sight to behold. Mind you he finished on Lancasters via 68 ops

[POBJOY]

The Americans may reckon the B-17 as the foremost. Our most overshadowed is the Hurricane.

Not in 11 Group where most of the action was !!!

[Prangster]

Tactics were part of the problem, the first raid was by three aircraft and those that followed were mostly by individual aircraft, problems were had with guns freezing at altitude, issues with the Sperry bomb sight, no rear defensive armament. Between the aircrafts initiation 8 July and removal from the bombing role 26 September they flew 26 raids, 51 sorties, of which 25 had been aborted with no bombs dropped. Of the 50 tons of bombs dropped only one ton is estimated to have hit the target, eight aircraft lost - one undercarriage collapse on landing (aircraft cannibilised for spares), one aircraft disintergrating on touch down due combat damage, one accidentally burnt on the ground, three destroyed by fighters on Norway raid, one lost on high altitude test, one appeared in a vertical dive from cloud into the ground. Aborts due aircraft unservicabilities seem to back up the USA advice that the aircraft was not yet ready for service.

Straight from the horses mouth, my stepfathers so called rest tour involved a posting straight off Hampdens from Scampton to I believe 90 Squadron evaluating the B17C. As you can imagine it was like leaving a clapped out Ford for a brand new Bentley..(or so he thought) Until the rot set in. Thankfully he survived the rest tour and then cross trained from WOP/AG to pilot, then he got his mucky mitts on a Lancaster. Hiis verdict on the B17C was unprintable in polite company

[Herod]

Hurricane overshadowed !!Quote:
Originally Posted by PAXboy View Post (https://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/645721-oft-overshadowed-lancaster.html#post11200826)
The Americans may reckon the B-17 as the foremost. Our most overshadowed is the Hurricane.
Not in 11 Group where most of the action was !!!

Agreed, but the general public didn't know that. I take tours around at Cosford, and to most people the BoB IS the Spitfire. Why? The Spit is a sexy-looking beast. It's like comparing an Arab thoroughbred with a cart-horse. My point though is always that the real winner of the battle was the Hurricane.

[Bergerie1]

An interesting little video of a relatively unknown operation:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5pvl7Ig7P4