B-17 vs Lancaster | Which was better? #shorts

#shorts The B-17 flying fortress and the Avro Lancaster are easily the 2 most iconic bombers to have come out of WW2. However, which one was better?

Music source
Song: "Savfk - For Tomorrow [Epic]" is licensed under a ‘Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0)’.

Over 1800 members, Join us on Discord!

[DelinaSilence]

Let's be real here
Both planes are good for the role they're designed for and helped win the war

[JohnSmith-mvdy]

The better plane is the one that brings you home alive.

[jeremycox]

It’s depends on the mission ?
If it’s a target that requires a heavy Bomb load such as the Tall boy or Grand slam then the Lancaster. But if it’s a target that’s heavily defended and in broad daylight then I would go with the Flying Fortress.
Each bomber had their job to play, and they did it well

[hammer]

Different planes for different roles.
The B-17 needed all those guns because they were pretty much guaranteed to be intercepted due to daylight bombing formations and tactics.
The Lancaster on the other hand was more of a night bomber. The comparatively measly armament still put out enough lead to easily deterr enemy attackers at night or even straight up blind them with muzzle flare.
The Lancaster also wins out in terms of flexibility. It was a very good platform for modification such as increasing the bomb load and type if bomb. It also proved to be fundamental in British bomber design until the jet age had truly come with descendants like the Shackleton serving decades after ww2

[zofe]

The Lancaster carried up to 22, 000 pounds of a grand-slam motherlode bomb to wreck havoc in German underground V-2 arsenal bunkers. The Lancaster concept of a tall body with a long lower-body bomb-bay
lived on in to the Nimrod which had a long bomb-bay for varied anti-ship weaponry.

[HardyHardyHar]

Honestly although they’re both 4 engined heavy bombers I don’t think they’re comparable. The B-17 was a long range day bomber designed to defend itself, hence the firepower and armour, and hit targets in formations, hence the smaller load. Whereas Lancaster was a night bomber which relied on not being seen meaning it didn’t need heavy MGs and armour and could thus afford a heavier payload and longer range. They were both designed for different roles. And they do well in both of those roles.

[knightlife]

I'm just happy they both were Allied Bombers. I'm genuinely thankful for them and the brave Souls that flew them! On that note, thank you for the content you put out, Sarge!

[graham]

They both were excellent aircraft. Used in a way that maximized there capabilities and hid weaknesses. It would take all day to list. But they both had positives and negatives.

[sethrenaud]

My Uncle was a Canadian Lancaster Bomber pilot. It was shot to bloody hell by a BF-109 over Essen. He limped it back and stall-landed it with no landing gear. He snuck some Yanks aboard his plane once (along with my grandfather). The Lanc flew like fighter. Vastly more agile than its American counterpart. The Americans were blown away by how well the Lanc felt and how effortlessly she maneuvered.

My uncle also used to speak of how many 'poor Yankee buggers' who died in the belly gun. They would often get trapped and would be landed by their pilots crushing the crew member below.

[davidelliott]

USA was able to make B17s like podding peas, but a bigger question why did they continue throwing away men and materials when there were better options. For example a pair of Mosquito bombers could carry the same bomb load as one B17. They used the same number of engines but needed 4 crew against 10 in the B17. They were accurate and being so fast were much harder to shoot down.
I give the Mossie as an example but why did the US not see the point and build their version?
Saying that, the British could have used a great many more and they did have the capacity to make more.

[JimmyEatDirt]

B-17 was the right tool for the average job. In superior numbers, B-17s could simply chuck their bombs at a target and achieve accuracy by volume of fire. The Lancaster on the other hand tended to fight at night, meaning it didnt need to be as heavily defended. The specialization of the Lancaster also meant that new bombs had to be developed (Tallboy, dam buster etc).

The B-17 was more survivable, faster, and available in much greater numbers. Ultimately, this is the same as comparing the Red Army T-34 to the German Tiger or Panther; each of them had distinct advantages, but in a war or quality over quantity, in an equal battle in the same place, same enemies a flight of B-17s would simply do a better job, and return home more often.

That and a B-17 was rolling off the line faster than the germans could shoot them down.

[bigblue]

Many thought the B-24 Liberator was better then the B-17. In fact it was a B-24 Hot Stuff which was the first to fly 25 mission.

Interestingly the B-17 concept was that it was a two engined bomber and the other two engines were to carry the extra crew and guns for its defence. Yet it still needed escort fighters to protect them.

The British went the other way and built the Mosquito. An aircraft so fast it did not need fighter escort.

[GregJones-cm]

The DH Mosquito was the stand out bomber of the war, paved the way for modern multi role combat aeroplanes.

[attilagyuris]

Another thing to consider:
The B-17 had the newer & more accurate “Norden” bombsight, while the Lancaster had the older and less accurate “Blackett” bomb sight, which was even more problematic at night.
Hence the Lancaster had to rely more on “area” bombing at night, with more bombs, hoping that at least one would of many hit the target.

Also don’t forget that B-29s used the Norden bombsight in many night bombing missions over Japan just before they dropped the two A- bombs.

[patrickrose]

When my Dad was 14 he worked at Rolls Royce in Hucknall. One day he got to taxi in the tail gunners turret for a couple of hundred feet while it turned round. He said the belts of ammo were laid out on the grass.

[ktiger]

B-17 better for safety return, even took a heavy punishment still make it back, plus more defensive weapons than Lancaster!

[british]

It has to be the Lancaster since it could carry loads of different loads and went on daring mission’s into the dams and u boats the b-17 is a great contender against it since they were used over germany and could fly with loads of damage but it the Lancaster gets my vote

[DanielBrown-snop]

They both were great at what they were tasked to do.

[jakemillar]

Lancaster because it can carry more and bigger bombs (Tall Boy, Upkeep (bouncing bomb))

Also because it's British, meaning it MUST be the best.

[cbrosentertainment]

I think the answer for most people for which is better is determined by which country they are from both did their jobs and were crewed by brave men