What Was Most Significant to Britain – the B17, B24 or Lancaster?

It would appear from the comments (so far), that the weight of opinion is for the B24’s in Coastal Command, however as could be reasonably expected, the Lancaster runs a close second.

Poor old B17’s haven’t had a lot of posting advocating for them so far.

Personally I hadn’t considered the B24 and the battle of the Atlantic.

Being an Aussie, I always think of the B24’s that flew missions from Australia and I have a soft spot for them.

My uncle was on B24’s as a WAG, trained as a pilot and then they said, too many pilots so its off to being a WAG for you. He ended up the war being a squadron leader WAG – unusual (from what I remember being told as a kid). He was involved in a lot of missions over New Guinea and Indonesia. He was based in the north of Western Australia, not sure which airfield.

cheers

Maybe the only reply to Proc would be “Thank God we had all 3!!!”

I really don’t think that was what Proc was implying, Web. I’ve always been of the opinion that the only stupid question is the one you don’t ask.

Best regards for the New Year!

I agree that this probably wasn’t being implied in this question but I do think that to start trying to rank what was the “most important” is largely a futile exercise and can lead on to issues of this nature.

I have often puzzled about why this type of comment is made on this forum,I have seen it posted by various people so not ‘having a go’ at any individual,if I comment about an a/c type then I may be criticising the designers,manufacturers,specifications etc but am never criticising the Aircrew.
They flew what they were ordered to until they were experienced enough to ‘pull strings’ or use personal contacts to influence the a/c or sqn for their next tour.
I doubt if many forum members criticise ordinary aircrew (as opposed to ‘well known names’ !!)

cheers baz

While the above is obvious, it also depends on the context. It’s one thing to criticise an aircraft type – few would have many good words for the Barrucuda, for example. But when you start off questioning what Bomber played the “more important” role in liberating Europe it does begin to lead into this area.

Exactly. If one type’s contribution is “more important”, then it must follow that the men who flew or died in other types somehow were “less important”, a clear nonsense.

I have often puzzled about why this type of comment is made on this forum,I have seen it posted by various people so not ‘having a go’ at any individual,if I comment about an a/c type then I may be criticising the designers,manufacturers,specifications etc but am never criticising the Aircrew.
They flew what they were ordered to until they were experienced enough to ‘pull strings’ or use personal contacts to influence the a/c or sqn for their next tour.
I doubt if many forum members criticise ordinary aircrew (as opposed to ‘well known names’ !!)

cheers baz

Exactly. If one type’s contribution is “more important”, then it must follow that the men who flew or died in other types somehow were “less important”, a clear nonsense. This would have been a question best kept unvoiced, if you ask me.

I really don’t think that was what Proc was implying, Web. I’ve always been of the opinion that the only stupid question is the one you don’t ask.

Best regards for the New Year!

Been watching a f British videos over the break and I started to wonder what Bomber played the more important role in liberating Europe during WW2, the Liberator (B24), the Flying Fortress (B17) or the Avro Lancaster?

I suspect that its a toss-up between the B17 and the B24.

cheers

Without going into facts, figures, quotes and slide rules, I’ll go with Proc’s subject title: “most significant”. It has to be the Lancaster: British designed, British built, crewed by members of the Commonwealth, easily recognisable (by sight and sound), and lauded by Harris after the conflict.

I’ve a lot of time for Harris, think he was badly treated by the powers that be then, and historians since, but he did seem to have a blind spot when it came to supporting the UK lifelines.

Moggy

I agree – there was a marvelous passage in “Nemesis” by Max Hastings about Harris and other leaders who have been judged in such a way (Curtis Le May as well) – lent the book out now so don’t have it to hand, its a good read BTW, went along the lines of Churchill especially, and Roosevelt both sacked military leaders on a regular basis and if there was any hint of unhappiness from the leaders on the bombing policy, then they would have been replaced at a whim.

As for the “20 times the damage” theory – it doesn’t hold out in such black and white terms, interesting point but the argument would be stronger with some maths.

Think I’m stupid? 😀

:D:D:D:D

Think I’m stupid? 😀

And more effort should have been put into maritime patrols. More B24 and less Lancasters would have been an excellent trade off.
Moggy

Sorry couldnt resist saying…surely you meant less Stirlings and Merlin Halibags Moggy 😀 :diablo:

ducks for cover and earplugs :D:D:D

Not saying this is correct in anyway – but worth a thought ?

I’d say it wasn’t correct. My guess is that the B24 on maritime patrol probably did more to dent the Axis war effort (Or preserve the allied one) that 20 average Lancaster sorties.

I’ve a lot of time for Harris, think he was badly treated by the powers that be then, and historians since, but he did seem to have a blind spot when it came to supporting the UK lifelines.

The U-Boat pens on the French coast should have been target number one whilst under construction and before they put the lids on. Pity about the French citizenry, but the completion of these havens was a disaster that cost many good men and ships.

And more effort should have been put into maritime patrols. More B24 and less Lancasters would have been an excellent trade off.

Moggy

Interesting thread (as always) on the forum – interesting to see the Halifax “excluded” from the get go – as for the initial question, I read some interesting comments somewhere by Jon Lake about the contribution of the B-24. IIRC – the RAF used something like 3 or maybe 4 times as many B-24’s as Sunderlands and he stated – with no great confirmation of the maths – that each B-24 in RAF Coastal Command did “20 times more damage” to the German war effort than a Bomber Command 4 engined heavy.

Not saying this is correct in anyway – but worth a thought ?

I think it was in International Air Power Review – need to go dig them out.

Here here,

And the Lanc was primarily a bomblifter, the Halifax did the other work next to the bombing duties as well. And there was the Stirling as well.

Interesting topic but again utterly useless in a historic sense.

Cheers

Cees

errrrm 6,116 + 2 prototypes HANDLEY PAGE HALIFAX ?

Many people are of the opinion that the RAF had just the one type of bomber in its squadrons …. the Avro Lancaster …. but this note is to draw attention to the FRONTLINE activities of 4 Group , 6 Group and elements of 8 Group that flew the HANDLEY PAGE HALIFAX .
6,116 aircraft plus the first two prototypes were constructed overall – many of which found themselves operating on Bomber Command Squadrons !

Big Viermotoren were a fad of the 1933 emergence of Big Power+Big Spars. Only USSR, UK, US and France tried it: USSR for range v.Japan in Siberia; US to hit Imperial Navy ports and ships: B-17 was intended to defend Philippines (try reminding any septic of his colonial past!); LB-30 (aka B-24) was funded by France to hit Baku oil; Freeman’s 1936 Heavies were to o’erleap Maginot to interdict supply and thus blockade any German thrust. Their industrial cost was severe: 2/3/44 SecState. for War:“RAF programme is already employing more than the Army(’s) I dare say that there are as many engaged in making heavy bombers as on the whole Army programme”. 7% of UK war effort {12% ’44/5 “measured (as) production and combat man-hours” R.Overy,Why the Allies Won,Cape,1995,P128 – truly more, as the King’s Forces took even more (2,445) US-built B-24 than Stirling}. The, ah, appeal of Big Bombing was also diversionary: Overy,P60:“Why (RAF resisted) releasing bombers for work over the ocean defies explanation (A) mere 37 (B-24 with ASV III(UK)/IV(US), May,43 closed)the Atlantic Gap (which) had almost brought plans to stalemate.” Specifically, in Q1/43 we had lost: UK had 3 weeks’ foodstock, before millions of sturdy, hungry GIs were due on board to save us all. Sorted within June,43 by Coastal B-24, whose “significance” therefore “wins” the Q.

Galdri

I was just editing a posting that I was making and I hope that opens up the question a bit.

I just noticed that. But still it is impossible to answer!! Let´s play the IF game for a moment. But the IF´s never stop! IF the U.S had not become involved in ETO, the Luftwaffe had not been hurt as much as it did. In that case, deep penetration by Bomber Command by night would have been very costly in the last two years of the war. But since they did participate, we only have to look at Albert Speer to see the effect of the Lancaster. I do not have my references at hand, but he is quoted as saying that British air attacks did more damage than american ones. (That can be directly linked to the Lancaster´s load carrying ability compared to the american types).

And the IF game does not stop there. What IF Lancasters had been cleaned up a bit?? Loose the mid-upper turret, lots of armour etc. They would have been hard catch for Luftwaffe´s main night fighter in 1943/1944, the Me-110. Guy´s, we are going to go around in circles with this one!

By the way the saying I have heard is “Those that can do…., those that can’t teach…., and those that can’t teach write books about it!

cheers

That is why I´ve never written a book. I think I can teach, as my Type Rating Instructor/Type Rating Examiner papers seem to imply. But I can not actually fly:D I´m always upside down for some strange reason.

….types which were responsible for directly delivering ordinance to occupied Europe

Lancaster then. Delivered far more than either of the others.

Moggy

What about the P51 and its role as a long range bomber escort?

Indeed, covered under ‘others’ – though I was considering types which were responsible for directly delivering ordinance to occupied Europe; the P51’s role was more (though not exclusively) akin to ‘enabling’ other types to deliver that ordinance. A moot point – as is the whole question.

Most Most significant contribution to the liberation of Europe? Any of the above but probably the P47, Typhoon, Mosquito need adding to the question (along with a myriad of others)

What about the P51 and its role as a long range bomber escort?