B-17 vs Lancaster Payloads and Armor, the Truth!

Both the B-17 and Lancaster have maximum take off weights around 65,000 pounds, yet it's commonly thought that the Lancaster has a much higher maximum bomb load. Is that true? Let's find out!

My Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles

Sources:

Pilot's Manual for Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress

Pilot's and Flight Engineer's Notes Lancaster

Lancaster: The Biography by Tony Iveson

A Historical Digest of the Combined Bomber Offensive 1939-1945, Richard G. Davis

Answers to common remarks/questions in the comment section.

1. I'm comparing AIRPLANES here, not operational doctrine. It's spelled out in the title of the video. Comparing airplane to airplane the B-17's maximum bomb load is about equal to the Lancaster. Some people feel that I should only compare what planes did in typical operations, but that's driven by factors other than what the plane's load carrying capabilities actually are. Airplane to Airplane in terms of maximum bomb loads, these two planes are about the same. I know that's hurt some people's feelings, but it's almost common sense. Both planes are about the same weights, and have about the same amount of power.

2. The Grand Slam Bomb. Yes I did mention it, but the focus of the video is on payload in terms of strategic bombing. The Lancaster only dropped the Grand Slam a handful of times, and it had to be modified to do so. Thus it's not representative of a Lancaster payload in terms of strategic bombing. There was no point in modding the B-17 to carry the Grand Slam because the B-29 could be, and was modded to carry TWO of them. Since the Grand Slam came out about a year after the B-29, there was simply no point in modding a B-17 that way.

3. Casualty statistics. No two sets of statistics are the same regarding this subject. No matter what stats I used, there would be disagreement about them. Since I didn't want to turn this into a 2 hour video explaining statistical variations, I just just used middle of road stats and put the source here in the description. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter, no matter how you slice it, a B-17 crew member had a far better chance of survival than a Lancaster crew member in spite of the fact that the B-17's flew the far more dangerous daylight missions. I suspect that's due to armor and altitude, but you can form your own conclusions.

4. PERCENTAGES! I am shocked that some people don't understand this concept. When looking at total air crewmen, vs. casualties, you have a percentage of crewmen who became casualties. That percentage is far higher in the Lancaster. Making the excuse that's it's because the Lancaster was in service longer really doesn't make it through the wash, and it's not true.

5. Maximum Range is by definition MAXIMUM, not necessarily the way you would choose to operate the aircraft on an actual mission (although you might). I didn't go into detail on this, or compare range to the Lancaster because this video is about bomb loads and armor. Comparing the ranges of these two planes is complex enough to require a separate video because there are various fuel tank configurations that were used, plus the effects of payload and speed. Several people have latched onto the idea that I said the B-17 could fly 1170 miles with it's max bombload at 25,000 feet. THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID. The maximum range numbers do not occur at maximum speeds and altitudes. They don't in any airplane, and I did not say otherwise. Perhaps I wasn't as clear about that as I should have been so, I'll reiterate. At the maximum payload the maximum range will not occur at the maximum altitude at the maximum speed for that altitude. Not in the B-17, not in the Lancaster, and not in any plane we discuss on this channel. Yes, with that bomb load the Lancaster can go farther, but the B-17 can go higher.

Видео B-17 vs Lancaster Payloads and Armor, the Truth! канала Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles