🧥 Have you always wanted a distinctive and authentic leather flying jacket? Check out the fantastic range from Legendary USA here: calibanrising.com/flying-jacket/

@castleanthrax1833

7 ай бұрын

Having seen the Lancaster "G for George" at the Australian War Memorial museum in Canberra, I can say that I have a much more "romantic" view of the famous English bomber. On a side note, I have a fun fact about Charles Bronson: Born to a Lithuanian-American coal mining family in rural Pennsylvania, Bronson served in the United States Army Air Forces as a bomber tail gunner during World War II.

@mikefraser4513

3 ай бұрын

You like the Lancaster because you probably had one from Airfix on your shelf..painted pilots and all. (I did)

@ianmedford4855

3 ай бұрын

Soooo, the B-17... but as an Englishman there is a precisely zero percent chance that you'll ever say such a thing out loud then?😂

@jimduffy1967

3 ай бұрын

@@mikefraser4513 I had both the Lanc and the Fortress as a boy in the early 70s,the Lanc I'm sure was G George,the Fortress nose decal was Joltin Josie or a Bit of Lace.

@jimduffy1967

3 ай бұрын

@@ianmedford4855 yes as a Brit I definitely preferred the Fortress as a lad they always looked more glamorous especially the daylight bombers of the 8th air force,silver with all the nose paint jobs,now I'm 66 I still prefer the b17 because I think it had more chance of getting you home with battle damage,it could take more of a beating than the Lanc but each of these bombers were wonderful,the film The Dambusters is so evocative of the time and hearing those 4 merlins roaring so yes the Lanc was wonderful in its own way.

I live in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. We have a Lancaster. Flies over all the time, sounds like victory. Lest we forget.

@garfieldsmith332

Жыл бұрын

The Mynarski Lanc. Had the pleasure of seeing it fly at the Hamilton Airshow one year.

@joshc3420

Жыл бұрын

Sadly a lot of people don't realize how much canada also used these planes we loved them and produced a lot of them as well, I mean hell almost every air cadet squad had used lancaster as a flight name multiple times and it's a legend in Canadian aviation I would rather fly that anytime

@mrvlsmrv

Жыл бұрын

Hearing one Merlin engine is awesome much less 4.

@41708

Жыл бұрын

Fantastic, you made me happy, My cousin trained in Banff, he was with 625 sqdn, canadians in the crew, (later on) and was killed on 1/7/1944 in his Lancaster. I won't forget .I still have his photos of Banff, he said that he would return there to live after the War.

@covenantor663

Жыл бұрын

@@mrvlsmrv Lanc crew likened them to a symphony!

My father flew 32 missions in Lancasters with RAF 101 Spec Opps in 1943/44, the highest fatality squadron in the RAF during the war, his was one of only two intact crews that completed their 30 missions. After his tour he could have gone home to Australia but he volunteered for Military Inteligence and flew classified missions in Beaufighters until July 1945. He died in 2019 aged 97.

@christopherparker4001

3 ай бұрын

God bless him,and lived to 97,my respect to the AUSSIES and Kiwis and other nations,remember the Polish 303 sqd,boy those Guy were good,im a pommie but well done all of you,my dad was in the desert war and Italy,apparently i was conceived on a beach in Naples

@graniteman62

3 ай бұрын

Thank you for your father's service

@moltderenou

3 ай бұрын

R.I.P.

@adolfshitler

2 ай бұрын

My uncle James was a pilot, didn't return from Hanover on his 6th mission 😢

@gibson617ajg

2 ай бұрын

101 sq specifically carried out radar-jamming operations on enemy fighters - it was initially successful until the Germans found out about it and devised equipment which could detect where the signal was coming from - which was, of course, a big, fat Lancaster - whose crew may have thought themselves immune from attack.

My father (Canadian) flew with RAF Bomber Command as a Lancaster Navigator. In 1968 I was a small child and we went camping in Ontario. The campsite next to us was occupied by an American family and their dad flew B-17's. My dad, never ever talked about the war, but he was so very gobsmacked and honoured to meet this new American friend...he praised him openly and made sure I knew just how BRAVE this man had been to fly in broad daylight over Nazi Germany...he was just in awe of that mans courage and selflessness. They traded some mementos (my dad gave him a poppy that he had in the car) and I will never forget the admiration they had for each other. I will remember!

@Meatball-du1hm

Ай бұрын

Ditto on the dad thing Joey. My pop was a 'Wireless Air Gunner/Navigator' aboard a Lancaster and he always raved about the bravery of 'those Americans' who flew daylight raids into Germany while he was flying similar distances at night dodging flak and night fighters. The difference between your dad and mine is that for whatever reason he opened up about what happened. I guess it was good therapy. Mom told me that early on in their marriage she used to wake to dad's screaming and it was ALWAYS the same thing... "THEY'RE TRYING TO KILL ME!!!"

My father was an RAF mechanic for most of the war, he flew planes but not officially. He was training to be a full pilot in 1945 then when the war ended and the RAF no longer had any interest in new pilots. He bought himself out of the RAF (costing him much of his savings), and on his last day was told he must leave the air base by 12pm or he would be arrested. (Such a kind reward for all those years of faithful service).

@bizjetfixr8352

7 ай бұрын

Pretty much the same way people are treated when laid off in the USA. You get a file box to load your stuff, which is then inspected for "company property", then security "perp walks" you out the front door. And these management morons can't understand why they can't keep help, or find any to hire. I'll say this for Gen Z. They are definitely not buying into the management BS we baby boomers were sold. Answer me this.......if "hard work" is all it takes to get ahead, why aren't all of the undocumented workers in the US multi-millionaires? Some traditions never change.

@arthurrytis6010

3 ай бұрын

@bobjackson . Don't know why in this day and age anybody would lift a finger to perpetuate this lost country. All politicians fault since Blaire's new Leibour.

The big things is: Many thanks to all the brave men who flew these planes from where ever!

@dannywlm63

Жыл бұрын

Correct

@somebloke13

Жыл бұрын

@@dannywlm63 Yes mate, many, many brave men from all over the world made the ultimate sacrifice to save freedom and democracy 👍

@otterspocket2826

Жыл бұрын

Thank you, it's a shame this hasn't got more likes.

@dukecraig2402

Жыл бұрын

Absolutely, they all had balls that weighed so much they lowered the payloads of the bombers, like everything else about aircraft it's a trade off.

@lawrencefox563

Жыл бұрын

Amen bruh

My wife's uncle was a nose gunner in a Wellington bomber throughout WW2. He was 17 when he joined up as the idea of flying excited him. He survived the war, but refused to get on an aircraft for the rest of his life, not even at a museum. He told me that joining the RAF voluntarily was the worst decision he ever made.

@your_royal_highness

8 ай бұрын

Think about how unbelievably lucky he was given the stats.

@DawnOfTheDead991

8 ай бұрын

He could've been in the merchant marine stuck on Arctic convoys.

@castleanthrax1833

7 ай бұрын

Fun fact: The Wellington bomber is another of Barnes Wallace's contributions to the war effort.

@DawnOfTheDead991

7 ай бұрын

The Lanc had some great qualities for sure like bomb load, but in a combat situation I'd take a B-17G ANYDAY@@castleanthrax1833

@paulelephant9521

4 ай бұрын

I can't imagine how stressful that job must have been, you go up get shot at by flak, chased by fighters, absolutely freezing your arse off, then you get back to base to find maybe 30% of your colleagues are now dead/POWs(these figures did improve during the war, but equally some of the early raids suffered even worse casualties) you get a day off then do it again! The mental fortitude to do that is magnificent, do you think you could do that!? I have grave doubts that I could. We all owe an enormous debt of gratitude to these people, truly heroic.

What a wonderful vid. Consider me subscribed! First, the disclaimer: I'm a Yank, and my great uncle flew 49 missions as co-pilot of the Axis Ass Ache with the 9th AF out of North Africa. 9th crews were expected to complete 50 missions at the time, but on the 49th, shot to hell over the target, the crew agreed that rather than risk the trip back across the Mediterranean in a severely damaged bomber, they would attempt a landing at a fighter base on Sardinia. A fighter strip is a tough call for a fort on its best day, and they came in hot with a number of systems not working. The gear collapsed, and she slid off the runway, being written off as a useful piece of ordnance. Final log entry reads, "Conducted emergency landing at Sardinia. Crew survived. Plane didn't." I have great respect for the Lanc and its brave crews who went out to face the German defenses alone in the dark, but because I'm dedicated to keeping my mortal a$$ alive and well, I'd have to go with the Fort. My uncle, who retired after three wars as a major general and flew types from the P-36 to the Phantom II didn't talk about his service much, but he regarded the Fortress as a ship with an exceptional ability to bring you home, and the photos of battle-damaged B-17s that brought their crews back to fly another day are legend. Those pics and my uncle's experience inform my choice. Regarding your other question, the only American "special" operation I can think of was the B-24s that hit Ploesti at treetop height. If I recall correctly, that didn't go too well. Anyway, "Axis Ass Ache" wasn't famous by any means, but if you Google the name, you can get some rudimentary information and a couple of pictures. My uncle is Lt. Holt in the crew photo. Thank you so much for this tribute to ALL the brave airmen who did their part to secure freedom. May they never be forgotten!

@CalibanRising

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching Jack!

@peterflynn9123

3 ай бұрын

2 dedicated gun positions on the lanc ? Front, dorsal and tail ?

@BlyatimirPootin

2 ай бұрын

I hate to say it but basing your choice on the Forts that came home with battle damage is survivorship bias. What about all the B17s that didn't make ot back. There were alot of them that didn't.

Both amazing aircraft flown by courageous crews under the most trying circumstances.

@jjt1093

3 ай бұрын

yep well said

I have to say, I have a love/hate relationship with the Lancaster. I was born and bred in the city of Lancaster, so I have a fondness for the Lancaster - but my uncle (one of my dad's older brothers) died over Holland as rear-gunner on a Lancaster. My dad didn't track him down until the late 1990s - he has a grave in the Netherlands, and finally got his name on the city of Lancaster's war memorial.

@CalibanRising

Жыл бұрын

That is bittersweet indeed. I'm had he was finally memorialized in his home town.

@victorthorn8967

Жыл бұрын

Indeed, my wife's uncle was radio/gunner in a Lancaster with a predominately Canadian crew. Shot down in Belgium in 1944, we finally got to the grave in 2017. He now is also immortalised on the Lancaster War Memorial in Lincoln. Everyman a hero.

@seafirefr.4751

Жыл бұрын

That’s the worst position you could possibly be in as the crew of a Lancaster, they were known as tail end charlies, they were infamous as the mortality rate was extremely high, if a Lancaster was going down and you were a tail gunner, good luck getting out of the turret and the aircraft in time.

@justbreakingballs

Жыл бұрын

What's his name Ken I'll have a look next time I'm around Dalton Sq

@Anglo_Saxon1

Жыл бұрын

@@seafirefr.4751 I know mate,they couldn't even wear their chute it was that crammed.If they were going down, the rear gunner was expected to grab his parachute,strap it on ,then somehow revolve the turret enough to be able to drop out of the back!

I loved both planes as a kid, building models of both. Being American, I discovered the Fort first but as I read more about the war and discovered the Lanc, I became enamored with it as well.

We get used to thinking of these as vintage (even old-fashioned) aircraft, but remember that for some 18-year-old farm hand who might never have been on a train and gets called up and put in one of these it would be very much an awe-inspiring state-of-the-art wonder, the equivalent of getting into a space shuttle for us.

Great video! I visited the RAF museum long ago and was shocked at how big the Lancaster was, made the B-17 look tiny. (I was also surprised at how big a Ju-87 Stuka was.) Being a Yank, I have a soft spot for the B-17, but also have huge respect the accomplishments of the Lancaster.

@CalibanRising

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching!

@castleanthrax1833

7 ай бұрын

I think that's how it is for most of us. We tend to "adore" the planes of our own nations, but they're definitely both incredible examples of bomber aircraft.

@SISU889

3 ай бұрын

​@castleanthrax1833 well said , and hero pilots and crew on both sides of the pond !

@anthonydaria8728

3 ай бұрын

You aren't remembering it correctly. The B-17 is slightly larger than the Lanc. It is 6ft longer and has a 2ft longer wingspan. The Lancaster is taller, however.

My granddad served as a radio operator and mid-gunner on Lancasters, plus Wellingtons, etc. Never spoke about the war, but after his death his log books showed he kept volunteering for missions after he’d completed his mandatory number of sorties. It was a coin toss whether he would return each time he flew. Difficult to imagine the bravery of these teenagers/early 20s flight crew 🥺

@vcv6560

Жыл бұрын

Just shows how bonding the experience of combat is on men. I learned only a few years ago that Donald Plesense was a Bomber Command veteran, I thought he probably felt he was playing himself in The Great Escape.

@castleanthrax1833

7 ай бұрын

​@@vcv6560Charles Bronson was a tail gunner.

@royfr8136

7 ай бұрын

bs

@castleanthrax1833

7 ай бұрын

@@royfr8136 I guess you must come from a family of cowards.

@jacktattis

6 ай бұрын

Brave men particularly at night.

My maternal grandfather was a Lancaster pilot and air bomber in WWII, then worked for the next few decades for the RCAF. He passed away in 2017. Didn't talk much about his time, but he never regretted bombing "those bastards". Different world, indeed.

As a Son of a retired RAAF Member and Veteran my Father spent 5 years in Malaysia during the Malaysian conflict serving for over 20 years, In 1978 upon his retirement as a senior NCO in charge of Training My Father lived and breathed the RAAF even after retiring...I always said if not due to family reasons Dad would of had to of been kicked out of the RAAF he loved it until the day he Passed...RIP Dad and to all the Men that have served and sacrificed

@wezza60

3 ай бұрын

My dad as well, 1942-46 in the Pacific.

Interesting. They both have their pros and cons. As an American, I'd fly in the Boeing, but simple out of tradition and respect for the guys that I know that flew them in the war. I remember all the arguments about air superiority regarding the 17s and the 24s. A friend of mine who flew a 17 said that if you survived in one or the other, that was your favorite. Made sense to me. A lot had to do with luck, as all of them were extremely dangerous to be in during combat.

The De Havilland Mosquito in a slightly altered form, could carry 4000 pounds of bombs, at high speed, with two engines. It's astonishing to think that a huge B-24 could only carry a fraction more than that. Given the choice, though, it would be a Lancaster every time. Endlessly adaptable, and incredibly strong. Accurate, too. Many raids by the US had tried to destroy the vital Bielefeld railway viaduct in Germany. In 1945, One 'Grand Slam' bomb was dropped, by a Lancaster of 617 (Special Duties) squadron, next to the viaduct, and destroyed a huge section, rendering it useless for the duration of the war.

@kenwood7656

Жыл бұрын

100%, best bomber of the European Theatres.

@420JackG

Жыл бұрын

How far could a Mosquito carry that load though? A B-24 could carry 5000lbs to Stuttgart or Frankfurt. It could carry 8000lbs to the low countries or northern France. The Mosquito was really cool, but there's probably a reason they didn't just build those.

@markallinson4935

Жыл бұрын

@@420JackG Swift google shows that the radius of operation for a mosquito with 4000lb bomb was between 535 and 550 miles... they regularly bombed berlin with the 4000lb bomb..Also the typical cruising speed of the Mosquito was around 240mph with a max speed around 400mph (depending upon mark) , while the max speed of the liberator was around 290mph. There are stories of mosquito's doing 2 missions in one night. They also had the lowest loss rate of any bomber in WW2

@lukedaniel7669

Жыл бұрын

@@420JackG a Mosquito could carry a 4,000lb bomb to Berlin. That same 4,000lb bomb wouldn't fit into a B-17 because the bomb bay was too small. (Source - Donald Bennett's war memoir, he was the founder and commander of the RAF Pathfinder Group) For specialist roles the Lancaster was superb but as a general purpose bomber the Mosquito beats it and the B-17 hands down.

@nickdanger3802

Жыл бұрын

DH98 Mosquito B. Mk IV 283 built Night bomber using Merlin 21 or 23. Bulged bomb bay fitted to some to allow carriage of 4,000 lb bomb internally. Max speed 380 mph, max weight 21,462 lb. Twenty seven built as B.Mk IV modified for PR role BAE Mosquito page

Rolls Royce engines! A Lancaster would frequently fly directly over my office in a previous job I had, and every time I heard the Rolls Royce hum coming towards me, it was bliss. I once met a guy who'd flown 7 missions as tail gunner in G for George, which is on display in the Australian war memorial.

@covenantor663

Жыл бұрын

Crewmen often compared the combined sound of the four Merlins to a symphony!!!

@wilburfinnigan2142

8 ай бұрын

xcrockery FYI PACKARD in the USA built 55,525 Merlins in WW II and ALL 400 of the Canadian built Lancasters used the PACKARD Built MERLIN, not the RR built version, and yes they were different, also 1500 Mosquitos and 1200 Hurrycanes built in Canada used the PACKARD built Merlins !!!

@sprinter1832

8 ай бұрын

@@wilburfinnigan2142 Aww! it's big mouth Wilbur, I thought you were dead? anyway, you built Merlins, you did NOT invent them!, and you built them to BRITISH specifications, and the only reason for that, is Britain were getting bombed, you Yanks were not! PMSL🧐🤓

@phantomkate6

7 ай бұрын

@@sprinter1832 He's spamming the comments. Just report him for spam.

@johngregory4801

5 ай бұрын

I used to work next to an airport. One week there was a very special guest there, a B-17G flying daily in the Hillsboro Air Show. One beautiful day I heard the most glorious noise I'd ever heard from an engine as the building started to shake. When I ran outside, I watched that Fortress flying away. It had just taken off. The pilot put it on its wingtip after liftoff to regal our humble business with the sound of four synchronized radials at takeoff power... Simply AWESOME!!!

My uncle flew 35 missions as a ball turret gunner when he was stationed at Great Ashfield in '44. One of his planes was shot down and he bailed over Belgium. They helped him get back to base 2 weeks later and he continued his career. His main plane, Li'l Audrey (42-32008) flew 111 missions with zero casualties and survived the war. He even claimed at least one enemy plane shot down. But he did catch a piece of flak in the sole of his boot, which he wrote "Made in Germany" on and kept as a souvenir. Also took part in the first daylight bombing raid over Berlin. It's mind-boggling that all these fellas were just kids.

@jacktattis

2 ай бұрын

Yes a really bad position They must have been in agony all the way.

My Uncle Joe was a tail gunner in a B24 Liberator. His plane was severely damaged by flak on a bombing run over Germany and crashed when he returned to England. He did not survive, I don’t know if he was already dead when they crashed or not. It’s beyond my imagination what any of these crew men an airman suffered during World War II. Both B-17 and the Lancaster were crazy good machines piloted and manned by brave individuals. Hard to choose which one is better as they both did such a different things. Thankful for those sacrifices that were made and glad that it’s something I don’t have to do. Thanks for the great video I’ve been in love with all World War II planes for 63 years.

Lancaster! I read 3 books written by an Australian Lancaster crew member who flew in Bomber Command. As you said there was little recognition given to the crew of Bomber Command and he was trying to raise awareness through his books. The Australians found it particularly tough because the Australian public felt they had been abandoned by them during the Pacific war, and some of them were even sent white feathers! Back to why I would like to fly on a Lancaster, according to the author Laurie Woods, the Lancaster was just as strong as the B17. One Lanc went into an almost uncontrollable dive after being hit by flak. They said the airspeed indicator went off the ’chart’! The pilot had to get two other crew members to help him pull the stick back and they recovered. Could you imagine the stresses on the airframe? Another Lanc was returning from a raid and knew that flak along the Dutch coast would be particularly heavy, so they flew very low to escape the radar. Suddenly there was an almighty bang, but they were able to keep flying. When they returned to base there was a twelve inch rip in one of the wings, like someone had taken a buzz saw to it!!! They think they probably flew into a barrage balloon cable! Not too many planes would survive that. Another point about the Lancaster was that, unloaded, they had the same power/weight ratio of a Spitfire and often after unloading their bomb load, they were able to outfly the night fighters using a corkscrew manoeuvre.

@igrim4777

Жыл бұрын

The attrition rate of 53% the video says doesn't tell you that there was an average 45% _death_ rate over the war, 84% during '43 to '44, for Bomber Command. How stupid were the people sending white feathers to men who knew they were as likely as not to make it home after just 30 flights simply because they were risking their lives in a different part of the world.

@M3rVsT4H

Жыл бұрын

Both my grandfathers fought in WW2, one was amongst the few Lancaster pilots who completed his required operations and would go on to train pilots as well as fly glider missions. And the other trained in Signals and was an Aussie coast-watcher in the Pacific theatre. The pilot married a pretty young English woman after the war and brought her home to raise a family, and never spoke of the war other than a few rare occasions. One of those occasions was when he gave me a model lancaster kit for christmas, and took me aside to tell me how he used to fly one. But none of us really knew his full role in the war until his funeral where both the RAF and RAAF sent acknowledgements of his extensive service, much to the family's surprise. The other, despite his service, has never been acknowledged by the RSL as a returned serviceman because he never saw combat in theatre.. Even though avoiding combat was specifically part of his mission brief. Regardless of this, they still pick him up and plonk him on the back of a jeep every year for the ANZAC parade. He's 96 now, and all but completely deaf, no doubt in some part due to those years of monitoring heavy static. And boy does he have some cool war stories. :)

@covenantor663

Жыл бұрын

@@M3rVsT4H I knew a guy not far from me who fought with Z force in Borneo. For those guys their reunions were a bit like a jigsaw puzzle since they mostly operated alone in small groups.

@susieq9801

Жыл бұрын

We have the RAF veterans and Bee Gee Robin Gibb who spearheaded the crusade for the Bomber Command Memorial dedicated in Green Park London in 2012.

@jacktattis

Жыл бұрын

Any plane than can carry a 22000lb bomb has to be tough

Since I was 10 years old, I have loved WW2 aircraft. Back then in the 1970s a lot of boys made model airplanes and there were 'Battle' and 'War' comics as well as WW2 movies. For some reason I retained my love of these aircraft even though it seemed like all my peers had lost interest in them as they got older. When I was 17, I was able to travel to the UK (from Adelaide, Australia) and visit London. While my mum and sister went to see Harrods, I took the advantage to get a train out of London and get to the RAF Museum. Finally, I got to see the fighters and bombers that I had so loved. This was and still is the pinnacle of my life. I had arrived.

@adamshaw5975

Жыл бұрын

I always preferred the "Commando" comics myself. They had thicker spines and an overall, more premium quality feel to them, yet were slightly cheaper than the "Battle" and "War" comics. When you're a poor kid with minimal pocket money, the choice was obvious.

@gregorturner9421

8 ай бұрын

yeah i grew up on things like a bridge to far and 633 sqn which cemented my love of the mossie. so when they posted the restored mossies second flight on go pro with no music it was magic to see the pilots view.

I agree with what somebody said earlier, if I had to be flying over Nazi Germany and could choose, it would be a Mosquito. The Lancaster is iconic for Brits and Canadians, and the B17 for our American cousins. Got to admit that the statistics for the B17 are more favourable for the crews. If they were shot down B17 crews had a better chance of getting out and surviving. I always preferred the idea of going in daylight as well, though it does seem crazy to do so. God bless all of them.

B-17 is my choice to fly in (but I love both aircraft!) Reasons: 1. Radial engines are slightly less susceptible to damage. 2. .50 caliber defense guns. 3. Ball turret. 4. Two pilots. 5. Flew higher. 6. More escape options.

I'm just old enough to have known many WWII vets, I feel proud of all of them no matter what country they fought for, It's beyond me how the air crews of both British and American could get into the flying death boxes day after day knowing the odds were against you. My great uncle was shot down over Germany and was a POW till the end of the war.

@bluerock4456

Жыл бұрын

Czechs, Poles, Kiwis, Aussies, Canadians, South Africans & others from many nations flew against the Axis.

@andystreet4022

Жыл бұрын

I had a Great Uncle who was part of a Lancaster crew shot down over Holland returning from a raid on Germany. He was helped by the Dutch Resistance and remained in Holland until it was liberated by the Allies.

@rjohnson1690

Жыл бұрын

My friend’s father was on a Lanc. He was shot down and captured. The stories he had about his interment, being liberated by the Soviets, and his adventures avoiding those Soviets to get back to allied lines were incredible.

@dotarsojat7725

Жыл бұрын

@Bani COURAGE, is being scared to perform your duties, but doing it anyways.

@vincentlefebvre9255

Жыл бұрын

American and British ? May I remind you that out of the 55 000 bomber command men killed 4000 were australian and 10 000 were canadian, not to mention the New Zealanders, South Africans free Dutch, Belgians,Poles,Czechs,Danes, Norwegians.....Only an American could write American and British.

For me it has to be the Lancaster every time. So versatile and adaptable. What a kite! One thing you might like to revise is showing Wing Commander Guy Gibson VC as if he were still commanding 617 squadron in 1944. He left 617 squadron almost immediately after the dams raid and went on a goodwill tour to the States, then would not return to flying duties until 1944. He was tragically killed in action in a de Havilland Mosquito in 1944 being shot down over and crashing in Holland

@jackdaniel7465

Жыл бұрын

Yes the Lancaster is a great bomber, world class, a beast of a bomber, legendary in every way, both aircraft were beautiful but deadly, the only thing I can say is it's defensive armament was not the same as the B-17, but at the end of the day the Lancaster was a better all around bomber pound for pound,.

@johnadair6108

Жыл бұрын

Every time, really? And what if the target was out of range for a Lancaster? Send the Americans, I guess. Funny!

@geoffmesser5091

Жыл бұрын

@@johnadair6108ure but send over twice as many planes and about three times as many crew to achieve that task and drop those bombs from above 30,000 feet and miss far too many of your targets. And just fyi I have 2nd World War, Malaysian Emergency, Vietnam War and far more recent RAAF heritage in my family.

@stevesgaming7475

11 ай бұрын

The most awful thing about Guy Gibson is that he was tragically shot down by friendly fire.

I’m Scottish, loved the old movies. Respect to all who served. I reckon the ball bearing factory raid and the oil field raid are two that our yank cousins need a special thank you for. They young men did a great job no matter which bomber they flew. Lest we forget.

One other thing to mention are the bomber's durability. I don't know much about the Lancaster, but stories like ye olde pub show how insanely durable the b 17 is. The pub made it back with only one engine at full power, no rudder, half of a vertical stabilizer, a gaping hole in the side, and only one person was killed.

@petersmith5723

9 ай бұрын

Worth reading the whole story of Franz Stigler and Charlie Brown in "A Higher Call " by Adam Makos

@mmarsh1972

7 ай бұрын

The Lanc wasn't very durable. First its engines (while good, same ones on the Spitfire) but just couldnt take a beating like the B-17 Pratts could. They were liquid cooled so one bullet in the radiator and that was it, the engine was done. Lancs also had the tendency to burn or explode when hit, roasting the crew.

@stevekaczynski3793

7 ай бұрын

@@mmarsh1972 The Lancaster was a death trap in an emergency. The less famous Halifaxes and Stirlings had a (slightly) better survival record.

@jacktattis

6 ай бұрын

@@stevekaczynski3793 Is it not funny that 3349 Lancs were lost from Apr 42 to April 45 and all Bomber command lost 8233 in 6 years While the hot shot USAAF LOST 10152 in 4 years So I would say that Bomber Command not only dropped more bombs but did not lose as many/year

@concernedaussie1330

4 ай бұрын

@@jacktattis it's not apples to apples though. The yanks & they're B17's were doing the majority of day light missions .

Lanc as that is what called by so many Kiwi's flew in in WW2. God Bless her QEII has moved on! Just watching this documentary reminds me of what a small country like New Zealand did to defend Britain and the Empire! God Bless her and God Save the King! I think the Lanc was the best night time bomber and the B-17 was the best daytime bomber! the B-24 was the best all round bomber! Although the Halifax was also a great Bomber! The British Short Stirling was even worse than the He 177. The He 177 was a serious aircraft, it just had a few flaws! The Stirling looked great but was a hunk of S! I learnt a great deal out of this, thank you!

@peterstubbs5934

Жыл бұрын

Britain will always be grateful to our cousins of NZ/Australia/Canada/S Africa for their massive support in most wars.

@d53101

Жыл бұрын

@@peterstubbs5934 Thanks Peter, from Canada.

@stephencope7178

Жыл бұрын

The Heinkel 177 Greif, would have been a greater success if fitted with four individual engines instead of placing one engine behind the other. This led to overheating and engine fires.

@RPMZ11

Жыл бұрын

God rest her...God save the King!🍁⚔ God Bless the KIWIS!

@MrT67

Жыл бұрын

@@peterstubbs5934 Cheers Peter from NZ. I had an uncle who flew for the RAF during the war. Did his training here at home. Dad still remembers Uncle Don in the kitchen at home in his uniform the day before he sailed for the UK. My Uncle Don flew Hurricanes and P47's and survived. UK and US of course, so I don't have any bias. The Lanc and the B17 in fact had similar capacity, but one design favoured more and larger bombs, while the other favoured more guns, crew and armour. Both fantastic aircraft and both filled their roles well. I wouldn't care if the Allies took the fight to the Axis solely in Tiger Moths. If the craft does the job, it gets the thumbs up from me.

My Father piloted both 17s and 24s on 39 missions with the 8th including two Schweinfort raids. He was awarded the DFC with clusters. He had great respect for Bomber Command and the Lancaster.

@garfieldsmith332

Жыл бұрын

Thanks to your father for his service..

@johnneill990

Жыл бұрын

Tis a pity that the Eight had to fight the Luftwaffe and Bomber Command

The Lanc for payload . The Fort was half gunship half long range bomber . The evolution of the Manchester into the Lanc was fortunate , the original two engine layout being changed for a larger wing and four engines . We can never forget these thousands of young men ,flying repeatedly and knowing the odds.

@casematecardinal

11 ай бұрын

It hardly carried these loads in normal missions. Plus it had the issue of not being able to arm and disarm its payload in flight which is pretty bad when you lose an engine over friendly territory

@topivaltanen4432

10 ай бұрын

If B-17 would be used like Lancaster in night time it could carry same bomb load.

@owenshebbeare2999

8 ай бұрын

​@@topivaltanen4432Not even close.

@topivaltanen4432

8 ай бұрын

@@owenshebbeare2999 Easily,only few guns to carry and less crew.Lower flying alttitude wouldnt need as much gasoline less weight could be replaced with bigger bomb load.

@Mishn0

6 ай бұрын

@@casematecardinal To be fair, it could disarm its weapons in flight. It's done via a solenoid that retains or releases an arming wire according to the position of a switch. Retain the arming wire and the fuse is armed when the bomb is released. Release the arming wire and it goes down with the bomb still in place preventing the fuse from arming. If you choose "jettison", the bombs won't arm. It's the same way all aircraft manage external stores, even to this day. To make the comparison between the Fort and the Lanc, you need to put them on the same mission. Both during the day with comparable escort, or both at night. This would narrow the differences a lot. I wouldn't want to be in a Lanc in a daylight raid, its defensive armament is way too feeble. And a Fort an night without the need to burn tons of fuel organizing into formations would be able to carry quite a bit more in bomb load. Still, maybe not as much as a Lanc but appreciably more. And a Fort demonstrated its ability to bring crews home after enduring horrific damage has been proven beyond any doubt.

My late dad used to tell me of the times he and his friends as ten year old would cycle to prees heath airfield, in Shropshire, to watch the yanks coming back to land, after a bombing mission. On occasions a flare would be fired upwards. Some he said we're shot full of holes, some trailing smoke and some with bits of the tails missing. They would watch as some skewed to a halt on one wheel only, screeching to a halt, Then the fire Crews and ambulance Crews would race out. They saw some on stretchers, others slumped on the ground, And more still, jackets open, just standing. Some times on their way to debrief, aboard trucks, they would throw gum and hershey bars over the fence, And ask if my dad had any big sisters. He remembered them as being generous, smiling, but most times their faces were dirty But they never forgot the gum or hersey bars.

@Surv1ve_Thrive

3 ай бұрын

🇬🇧❤️🇺🇲

Not sure the reason for the comparison. It’s more about the crews for these machines and I for one will be forever grateful for all the crews no matter their origins. Trying to conduct a contest between two allies makes little sense because both of the bombers were flown way outside their specifications during combat by their respective crews rather then die. Possible Death is a great incentive to force your equipment to do more then a spec sheet would indicate. Condolences for Elizabeth II she was a special lady.

@zen4men

Жыл бұрын

Thank You from Great Britain - she certainly was. ...... A hard act to follow, but I am hopeful.

I’m going to have to go with the B17, purely because I’m a Yank. Three of my grandmother’s brothers were in the USAAF, and I’m fortunate to have inherited one of my uncles B6 jacket. He had been a crew member in the 8th airforce.

Very thorough analysis, great job! One important aspect overlooked is how each aircraft facilitated or hampered teamwork and moral of the crew... For instance, it has often been mentioned that the Ju-88's clustered seating arrangement gave the crew the sense they were not alone in the vast sky. This sense that you were right there with your team gave a real sense of comfort when you're nerves started to create doubt in oneself.

My mum's older cousin was a crew member of a Halifax he was killed on one of the last missions of the war only a few day before the crew was due to be sent home from the end of their service. They were targeted as they came into land by German nightfighters they all bar two perished when it crashed off the end of the runway one of whom died 2 days later from his injuries. His baby sister who was over 10 years his junior was distraught as he was her favourite as though he was older her always made time for her. She hated Harris for years as she felt she sacrificed her brother for nothing as the raid wasn't vital nor successful but held real contempt for the politicians she felt were cowards that refused for so long to honour the men who answered their call and gave their lives following their orders. One of the most bittersweet moments for her was finally being able to visit the memorial and see his name with his crewmates shortly before she died. She kept in touch with the last member of the crew through until he died in his 80s. His family who was with him when he passed told her that he looked to the corner where no one was standing before smiling and quietly saying him name and something else before closing his eyes for the last time.

My father was flight engineer with the Lancaster (RCAF 1944-1961) Bomber training and Search & Rescue post war. I was a young air force brat growing up at the time and so fond memories will interfere with any objective choice. These two aircraft had indeed differences but worked as a team to achieve an end to stupid wars. In any conflict team work is the key.

@garfieldsmith332

Жыл бұрын

Thanks to your father for his service.

@SISU889

8 ай бұрын

Well said , Sir . Your father was from a great generation, on both sides of the pond.

@palco22

8 ай бұрын

@@SISU889 Appreciate the reply.

My maternal grandfather was a tail gunner in a Lancaster, he passed in 2008 but he had some stories! Great video, thanks

@stevesgaming7475

11 ай бұрын

The bravest of the brave, may he RIP.

As a Canadian, I’m going to have to take the Lancaster. It carried over 2 times the bomb load of the B17. My mom also worked on their assembly in Milton, Canada.

@nickdanger3802

11 ай бұрын

On average Lanc's carried about 1/3 (2,000 lb) more than 17's. Where did the engines in Mark III Lanc's (Dambusters) and Mark X (Canada) come from? Who paid for them? I found some interesting information in a document that can be found by Searching; Operational history of Lancaster 1B R5868 This Lanc flew 136 operational sorties in two years and ten months (less than one a week) and dropped "466 tons (assume long, ND) approx" or 3.42 long tons or 7,675 pounds on average. I did not deduct missions in which bombs were jettisoned due to engine failure or the entire load was flares or mission was called off in flight. I will leave that to someone dedicated to perpetuating the myth all Lanc's carried 14,000 pounds of bombs on every mission. On pages one and two (July and August 1942) the entire load was 3,360 pounds of bombs. On page one two raids were in daylight, the next daylight raid would be in July 44. On page two a bomb load is 2,000 pounds plus "6 x 4 flares". "(USA)" appears nine times with bomb type. Some of the notes are interesting. Recommendation by two pilots the aircraft be withdrawn from bombing, one friendly fire incident, "bomb doors damaged by bombs" and one midair collision with another Lanc over the target. I was amused by the listing of a USAAF general as "Passenger" (instead of observer) as if they were going to drop him off somewhere.

@wilburfinnigan2142

8 ай бұрын

@@nickdanger3802 Damn sonebody else knows the truth. RAF figures throughout the war, total tons dropped divided by sorties flown averages less than 6,000# !!!!! Most people take what a lanc COULD CARRY as what it did and that is not true,,,,

I met a Canadian airman once, who used to be a rear gunner in a Lanc. He said he was lucky because some of the other rear gunners in his squadron were basically hosed out of their station on arrival back home.

Later Canadian-built Mk X Lancs were equipped with Martin dorsal turrets mounting twin .50s. At about 13:50 there's a glimpse of 'VeRA', the CWH Lanc, showing this arrangement.

I applaud both bombers, but if I had to choose, I think I'd go with either of them as the pros and cons are fairly equal overall. That's a hard call. They are both beautiful.

@bertkilborne6464

Жыл бұрын

At an air show we had an opportunity to check out the interior of a B-17 and other bombers . I was surprised how small the B-17 is, inside.

@giladpellaeon2223

Жыл бұрын

I pick the Lancaster, purely because on night bombing missions you had a better life expectancy, but not by much! Those yanks flying daylight raids against possibly the worlds best air defense setup in the world. Those boys had so much courage to do that. I'm a proud Brit, but we really do owe the Americans for their help during WW2.

@Caseytify

Жыл бұрын

@@giladpellaeon2223 I'll take a moment to mention the "bomber will always get through" mentality before the war, usually held up to derision by the ill-informed. The truth is that in the mid to late 30s fighters weren't that fast, and had huge trouble intercepting the Forts. Thus the conviction that bombers were untouchable. This was before the Spitfire and Bf-109 took to the air. After 1940 the (mostly) conventional wisdom that it would be impossible to design an escort fighter that had both the range to keep up with the bombers, yet still meet German fighters on even terms. ... One of the rarely examined features of the Mustang is that it actually enjoyed some extra thrust from the air leaving the belly scoop. The synergy of the Merlin mated to the Mustang airframe was one of the miracles of the war. Just don't tell the Thunderbolt pilots. :)

@giladpellaeon2223

Жыл бұрын

@@Caseytify A true example of turning a mediocre aircraft into the worlds best fighter just by adding a superb engine. If I had to choose between a P51 or P47, it's a tough one. The Mustang is much more nimble, but them liquid cooled engines are fragile, yet the PW radial of the Jug could take hits and still get home. Heavier armament as well

Irrespective of which aircraft, anyone that flew in these bombers were/are bloody hero’s. Everlasting respect and appreciation ❤

As to which I would have preferred to serve in I think I would go for the Lancaster. Although by percentage it had a higher casualty rate, that was partly effected by the length and amount of units in service in the earlier days. But the main reason I think is that at night the fear would have been less as you couldn't see all the fighters, or even the amount of flak (only seeing what was close and in front of your eyes) but in daylight more prone to see all the carnage around you. I am sure I would have been totally terrified, but less so at night where your vision was limited. Plus the Lancaster was far more maneuverable and better able to avoid trouble possibly.

My great grandfather was a Lancaster pilot in WW2. He wasn’t shot down however, the flight after he left his crew, his plane was shot down and all the crew were killed.

@yapod9061

7 ай бұрын

Wow, he dodged one hell of a bullet.

B-17. As an Aircraft Mechanic. Both As A Marine and Civilian. I would put my trust in those 9 cylinder Raidials !. Those Engines are tough as nails !. Good show ! Semper Fi

Yes I remember climbing into to the only, at that time, flying Lancaster as a child, and was surprised like you about the cramped conditions. I often see the, now renamed, Phantom of the Ruhr passing over my house these days, sometimes accompanied with a spitfire or hurricane. My grandfather told me he remembered seeing dozens of them during WW2, spiralling up to gain altitude, before heading off to France.

The 50 cal was a hell of a weapon, but the German fighters used 20, 30 even 37 mm explosive canon shells.. these did, very often tear a bomber both B17 and Lancaster to pieces, not to mention what they did to a human body...all, American, British and many from the Empire were brave to have to endure such attrition... An Uncle of mine flew a B24 (RAF) in the last years of WW2 on clandestine sorties dropping equipment and agents... he survived Flak and Night fighters only to die in a motorcycle accident in 1952.... he was 26 years old

@jimdavison4077

Жыл бұрын

A lot is made of the Mk 108 30 mm cannons used in the Me 262 but the thing people forget is they had a very thin point and housing. When they exploded it was like a large burst of air that ripped aircraft skin appart. It looked devastating but the internal structures often remained intact allowing the aircraft to return home. Add to that the Mk 108 had such a low muzzle velocity it was only effective to 500 yards while the Browning .50 cal was good up to 1700 yards. The earlier Mk 103 30 mm auto cannon used on earlier German fighters was much more deadly having a greater velocity and range. If I had to chose between the .50 cal and any of the cannons I would stick with the Brownings myself. Faster firing rate, longer range, more ammunition carried and simpler to service. All the cannons could be problematic.

@nicolahannahbutterfield3483

Жыл бұрын

B24 and B25, crews are often missed, along with crews of many forgotten airframes, that struggled in the era that was 1940-45, seems people have forgotten the patriot war for freedom,

@TheArgieH

Жыл бұрын

@@jimdavison4077 Even the Hispano 20 mm ? After the RAF's go to firm (Martin Baker or Miles, I forget which) had sorted the bugs in the Le Chatterellaut belt feed of course. The debugged Hispano was so reliable that the RAF was able to save weight by deleting the in flight pneumatic cocking system and do the cocking on the ground prior to task off. Sadly when the RAF presented the schematics of the successful gun to the USA the NIH syndrome cut in and the US tried to improve on it! A sad story ensued, but let's not go there, and another reason the US stuck to 50 cal for wing mounted guns - allegedly. At least during WWI you could usually get at a gun breech in flight and clout it with a big hammer.

@jimdavison4077

Жыл бұрын

@@TheArgieH the 20 mm Hispano had issues right to the end of the war. Even into the jet era there were problems. The weapons systems were a lot more complicated than one would think. Even the machine guns on the Spitfires and Hurricanes had a complicated cooling system which cost the lives of.many RAF pilots who lost track of temps and their guns qould not fire. Then during early jet designs the gas from firing the guns would disrupt airflow into the engines and cause flameouts. The Hispanos had multiple issues on various aircraft. That said they were a good weapon providing extra punch that the standard 303 rounds early in the war.

@TheArgieH

Жыл бұрын

@@jimdavison4077 Thank you. That's very interesting. Umm.... my book on aircraft armament goes into some detail on the Hispano, so I suppose the question as always is which Hispano - there were many Mks and it was quite different from the German equivalent which was actually Oerlikon based. The standard RAF gun had of course been modified to overcome recognised problems which the mods did successfully. As I mentioned, the in flight cocking systems were removed because they had become redundant. There were Hispano Spitfires in service as early as the BoB and they were indeed problematic. They were so bad that aircrew pleaded for their old Brownings back. The problem there was wing flexing that jammed the feeds. On gun temperature the principal problems were wing guns being too cold, so much so that warm air systems were introduced for high altitude interceptors, it gets really cold up there and icing was a real general hazard. Look also at the wing gun spacing at the time of the BoB. The Spitfire wing was so complicated (it was almost hand built) that the guns are spaced right across the wing in a 1 2 1 formation. Contrast that with the Hurricane which was regarded as a far steadier and better gun platform. Those red linen patches pasted over the muzzles are to inhibit icing up until the guns are warmed through by firing, as well as a simple foolproof indicator of gun status to ground crews. Moving on, the long barrel HV Hispano had a problem with accuracy because at high speed the leverage caused, you guessed it, flexing. This accounts for the short barrelled Hispano Mk Vs actually buried in the wings of the Sea Fury. The Meteor Nightfighters had a similar problem, the nose was taken up by the AI set, which necessitated moving the cannon out to mid wing. Again the long barrel leverage introduced problems and the wing flexing certainly didn't help, thus that problem came full circle - though more about hitting the target than jamming. I do not know of much serious problem with RAF Hispano muzzle blast, though flameouts were indeed a real problem with early jets, I know that the 30mm Aden and its relatives could be problematic. Finally my books on the Hurricane don't show any complicated cooling system for the Mk 1 with its Brownings, in fact I didn't see anything particular complicated looking over the Manston Mk II (it saw WWII service for real) with its standard Mk II fit of 4 x Hispano 20mm, though there were no barrel shrouds which might be factor. The RAF always hankered after bigger guns. I am fond of the Zeppelin killer prototypes experimented with between the wars. The specification called for an oblique 37mm C.O.W., and I have a picture somewhere of an experimental war time Wellington fielding a special low profile turret for a 40mm gun (mid upper). I bet that had a slower R.O.F. than a Browning 303. Incidentally when pre-war the RAF was considering replacements for its dear old much respected Vickers Maxim, they wanted a far higher rate of fire iincrease the chances of a hit. Even pre-war, aircraft speeds were such that the combined speed of passing aircraft was up to 500 mph+. They tested the Browning, though it had to be modified to fire with an open bolt to avoid cook off of the heavy nitro content of the British 303, the Vickers K gun a.k.a. the Vickers GO and I believe a Lewis gun for comparison purposes. In any event, the Vickers GO won hands down, it was far more reliable, it had a R.O.F. of 1200 r.p.m., with a possibility of even more. The wee small snag was that it was fed by 50 and 100 round pans (some folk get confused between the Lewis and the Vicker K because both were pan fed (look for the indentations, that's a Lewis)). The RAF chose the modified Browning, imagine squeezing 8 x 100 round pans into that Spitfire wing. The Gladiator carried a Vickers K in a tray under each wing and a pair of Maxims under the cockpit , at least until they switched to Brownings. Surplus Vickers K ended up in SAS trucks and as anti aircraft mounts.

Good point bringing up the cramped conditions. I remember being around 10 or 11 and going to an air show with my father and getting the chance to roam around inside a B-17. It was very tight even for a young child like myself. One of the points I bring up humorously when talking about such things with friends is that being 6’3, I would have been fortunate enough to be too large for most naval postings and a lot of Air Force jobs, but would probably would have been the unfortunate first person in the infantry squad to die because I’d stick out! Side note: We just recently in the past week had a local WWII veteran die. When reading his obituary it said he had been a survivor of 35 missions over Europe as a bombardier, spread between the B-24 and the B-17. He got his pilots license after the war and flew well into the 90’s.

My Grandfather (Dad’s Dad) was a tailgunner in a Lancaster. He meet my grandmother who was a field nurse at his airfield. His squadron was part of Guy Gibsons, their aircraft never flew the Dambuster mission due to a bomb being ready but the spooling rig not. It's always fascinated me how the Lancaster was a single-pilot bomber but for both it and the B-17’s rolls in the bombing war over Europe I have to give ❤ to the men of bomber command for doing what needed to be done to turn the tide of the war

Since I am a Yank and my Paternal Grandfather was a Co-Pilot for B-17 bombers during WWII my vote is for the Flying Fortress. R.I.P. William B. Nelson 1921-1998

Fun facts: 1.) The RAF’s DeHavilland Mosquito (a rapid twin-engined multi-role aircraft made of wood with a crew of 2/3) could carry the same bomb load as the B-17. 2.) The Lancaster was considered for the nuclear raids on Japan as the USA didn’t have a bomber with a big enough payload capacity prior to the B-29 entering service.

@sizzler2462

Жыл бұрын

I believe the b29 couldn't carry the atomic bomb due the the wing spar think it had two bomb bays and needed adapting see Mark Felton productions

@CalibanRising

Жыл бұрын

Great facts, thanks

@nickdanger3802

Жыл бұрын

More like Fun Myths: Mossy fighter bombers, the most produced mark with a bomb bay, had a max bomb load of 1,500 pounds. Unmodified unarmed bombers had a max bomb load of 3,000 pounds. BAE Mosquito page

@nickdanger3802

Жыл бұрын

@@sizzler2462 The Lancaster and Atomic Bombs, My Response to Mark Felton kzread.info/dash/bejne/mX92j9GqlNLKpdo.html

@danraymond1253

Жыл бұрын

This is not true. That is an often misquoted fact. The B-17 had a much larger bomb load when considering it's external bomb bays, and still even could carry more in it's internals. The B-17 routinely carried 5,000-6,000 lbs of bombs on long range missions, where the bomb that's being referred to on the Mosquito, the Cookie, was only 4,000 lbs. Not to mention it was only a single bomb, not a bomb that would be used for carpet bombing or on a bombing raid. Also it is only partially correct that the Lancaster was considered for the atomic bombs. Yes, it was initially. But that was only a brief time, and the idea was quickly scratched. The slower speed and lower altitude of the Lancaster would potentially put the crew in serious danger of getting killed or at least damaged by the atomic bomb, and I think range was also an issue for the Lancaster here as well. They did not have a crew of Lancasters on standby to drop the bomb, as Mark Felton suggests. I like Mark Felton's videos, but he is dead wrong on that video with a lot of stuff he says, and it has called into question the accuracy of his other stuff for me. @Sizzler see Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles video on the Lancaster and the atomic bomb. He calls out Mark Felton for his bs in that video. Kinda made me sad, cause as I mentioned I like his other stuff, but now I don't know what to believe from him. Greg is definitely right in this case.

Lancaster without a doubt. I lived at Duxford for a year back in 1972/3 & visited the East Anglia Aeronautical Museum several times including when the Shackleton arrived from Kinloss where I had been stationed previously & watched it being rebuilt & a little later seeing a Spitfire brought over from Canada. My Wife & I had a tour around the Shackleton as her dad was one of the first aircrews to bring it into service & did a goodwill flight out to Canada before his demob in 1950/1. The guy who we spoke with was really impressed I had watched the Shack being rebuilt. We also attended the airday there that year which blew me away seeing all the aircraft I had read & heard about in my childhood. I also had been in the Air Cadets in the '60s so was right into aircraft. It was also a privilege to live on such a historic airbase & see a lot of the places where the Battle of Britain film had been made. I had seen the film on its release & have watched it several times since. Makes me feel at home

Having 2 pilots instead of 1 came with another advantage: Co-pilots were junior apprentices who had a path to promotion, as long as they lived long enough to make it to Captain.

One of the most interesting things that would have been good to cover is the ability of the aircraft to absorb damage and return home. Of course the B17 was famous for that. Maybe the Lancaster was as well but I haven't seen the same level of comment about that capability. Given a choice I'd prefer the plane most likely to survive! :)

@jacktattis

Жыл бұрын

well the USAAF lost 10152 H /Bombers in WW2 in 33 months RAF Bomber Command lost 8400 in 67 months

@Gearparadummies

Жыл бұрын

​@@jacktattis For the most part, the RAF wasn't flying in the Pacific.

@jacktattis

Жыл бұрын

@@Gearparadummies No they were up against more Japs in Burma The RAAF were there though And the BPF was at the Philippines with the Seafires flying interception because of their superior Climb Rate And it was a Seafire that flew the last offensive sorties over the home Islands Gee you had to do something over in the west we had been beating the Luftwaffe since Oct 39

@labla8940

Жыл бұрын

@@jacktattis You have to factor sorties The level of difficulty. The US had more planes to loose. The US did more dangerous day runs. Dont think thats a credible factor. Plus the Britts were always more cautious and took fewer risks

@jacktattis

Жыл бұрын

@@labla8940 So the raids to sink the Tirpitz by the Lancs were cautious one of the raids was 1600 miles The only raid the USAAF did that was its equal was the raid on Ploesti 2. The Amiens raid by the Mossies was cautious 3. The 936 Double crossing of the Alps by the Lancaster bombing Luftwaffe positions in Northern Italy to hold down the Luftwaffe from going to support the Germans at El Alamein was cautious 4.The long range attacks by day and night on the UBoats hundreds of miles out in the Atlantic was cautious 5. The 100s of missions by the Swordfish flying out of Malta sinking 50000 tons/ month of enemy shipping for 2 years in the Med was cautious . My friend whatever your USAAF did it was pioneered by the RAF /FAA

According to Murray Peden in his classic account of being a bomber pilot with Bomber Command A Thousand Shall Fall, the dorsal turret on a night bomber was useless as the gunner could not detect fighters below him because the land below was so dark that you could not see a fighter's silhouette like you could if you were a tail or upper gunner. Also, a dorsal gunner who stared at the fires below was blinded for a considerable period of time.

@peterwright6235

Жыл бұрын

I think you meant ventral gunner - rather than dorsal

@kenstevens5065

Жыл бұрын

The Lancaster ventral turret was aimed optically making it difficult to use at night and in low light. Only a few were ever fitted. There was no room for a ball turret because of the huge continuous bomb bay.

Something I don't know about, for the B17, is its survivability with engine loss...my friend's father told of flying his Lancaster 'home' for, I think, over two hours, one *ONE* mighty Merlin! Only 100 or so feet altitude, coming over the English coast, but just enough to get her down... So, interesting to hear what folks might have to relate about B17's engine capabilities?

@kylebernard7755

Жыл бұрын

Three engine returns were common place during the war. Two engine was possible if you didn't lose both engines on one side, that made trim and turns dicey. The two advantages of the fortress was air cooled engines and more guns The merlins were nice but suffered from the golden BB syndrome, one hole in the cooling system and the engine was done. One other nice feature was that once the props bent on a gear up landing the pilots could use the brakes for a few seconds.

@carlpolen7437

Жыл бұрын

Total bullshit. I'm sorry but there are loads of historians who have compared survivability between the Lancaster and the B17... and the B17 wins handily. When flown in comparable missions, the b17 was much more likely to return to base. Yes, daylight bombing was more dangerous than nightime bombing, and that is precisely why the myth of the Lancasters durability was born. But this is highly problematic, because the reason the British began nightime bombing was precisely BECAUSE of the low durability of their bombers. I.e. they tried daylight bombing, which was considerably more accurate, but the loss rate of British bombers was atrocious. Far higher than american bombers even. Thus the British switched to nightime bombing. Just a few things to consider - the b17 had radial engines - proven to be far more robust/tolerant to damange than water-cooled v12s. The b17 had far more armor for the pilot and co pilot. The b17 had nearly double the Lancasters defensive armament and in superieor/overlapping feilds of fire configuration. - the lancastesr bombs had to be armed BEFORE takeoff - which meant that they flew the entire mission with ARMED bombs. Yes, lancasters survived more missions - because they were nightime bombing - because their loss rate during daylight operation was completely unnacceptable - which led British command to adopt nightime bombing, which has been shown by many historians, including British ones, to have been highly innacurate - about ten times less accurate than daylight bombing. Truly. And yet these factors are never pointed out by Brits. I like the Lancaster, I truly do, but my god you Brits are so damn biased that you cannot even think critically about these machines or why they were used the way they were.

Really enjoyed the build. Instant gratification for the viewer from start to finish presentation.

@CalibanRising

6 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching Brian!

Halifax was excellent especially after the engine upgrade, meet a pilot with 37 sorties in a Halifax he loved it, I thanked him for his service what a cool dude! he thought the Lancaster was over rated do to very favorable reviews, he said Lancaster were very hard to bail out of when shot down.

@utrinqueparatus4617

Жыл бұрын

This sort of loyalty to a particular aircraft is interesting. The Hurricane was often seen as second fiddle to the Spitfire, as was the HP Victor to the Avro Vulcan, post-war. One pilot whose bio I read flew both Lanc and Hali on operations and said the former was eager to leave the runway and reluctant to land, often floating for some time prior to touchdown, whereas the Hali took ages to get airborne and gave a sort of groan on landing, as if it were glad to be back on terra firma.

This may come off as a diplomatic copout but I would choose either bomber based on the mission I would be, theoretically, tasks with. Firearms, fighters & bombers are all like tools: choose based on task at hand to maximize success. As you highlighted so thoroughly, each bomber had their strengths & weaknesses. Fortunately for humanity, we had both bombers on the right side of history. Cheers

One thing the LAnc and B17 shared was a wing with 2 main spars. The B24 Liberator had a wing with only one main spar, and this adversely affected its ability to handle battle damage.

@dereksollows9783

11 ай бұрын

Yes, and the magnesium engine mounts.

I’m American and I’d have to say Lancaster. The Merlin’s, twin tail, greater payload, and more versatile bomb bay put the Lancaster ahead. The US took daylight raids both for bomb accuracy and cause the night was busy with the British Lancasters. I think they might should of traded work shifts based on aircraft since the Lancaster was better. The US had a better bomb sight than the Norden (Norden was actually pretty terrible), but chose Norden cause the man selling it was a much better salesman.

@wezza60

3 ай бұрын

Both great planes, the advantage the B17 had over the Lanc was its service ceiling, 35,000ft to the Lanc 21,000ft, that made the Lancaster more suitable to night missions whereas the B17 could be out of the range of most fighters except the Messerschmitt BF109.

@tommygun333

3 ай бұрын

Plus the better range and firepower.

As an American kid growing up in the 1980s, I was privileged enough to see several b17s fly over the years either at our local air show (in Smyrna, TN), or flying in or out of it. One came right over our house when I was about 12 or 13……coolest thing ever. When I was 22 I finally got to take an inside tour of a b17 on static display at the previously mentioned air show. I was really shocked to see how cramped the interior space was aboard the aircraft, especially given the massive outward appearance of the plane. Of course, that was in my summer attire and not full battle gear these brave lads had to wear on missions. I have seen the inside of a Lanc on TV only. I never had the honor of seeing one in real life. Those poor souls had a lot of courage to go do war in a cramped airplane that you can just about poke a hole in with an ink pen. Thanks for your video and god bless from North Carolina. Cheers!

My Dad was in RCAF Lancaster's from 43 to the end (bombardier and 2nd Navigator) and my impression of his impression (he past in 2019) was that the training was different as well as the aircraft. My understanding was that Lancs would have two navigators per aircraft, while the B17 would not as they flew formation in daylight. I watched the Memphis Belle with him and while watching the scene where the novice B17 crew crashes tragically on the runway he told me that would never happen. He said that the pilot brought the aircraft in alone after the crew would bail out over the aerodrome, which makes perfect sense. His ripcords from those jumps used to hang in the garage.

@Brok.

Жыл бұрын

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that bomber send up a flare beforehand indicating wounded on board? Seems pretty plausible then that there would still be crew onboard

B-17 all the way. Range and survivability the reason. My wife bought my Dad and me a ticket to ride in a B-17G. One of the highlights of my life.

@bluerock4456

Жыл бұрын

What a wife!

For some context; The B-17 and Lancaster (and B-24) are remarkably similar. The largest differences is in how they were outfitted for their given missions. The B-17 typically carried a lower bomb load to fly higher and longer missions with a much heavier deffensive armament (13x.5 cals and 10 crew vs 6x.3 cals and 7 crew). These choices were also influenced by day vs night raids. Protection was much less of a concern at night, so Lancasters could afford to fly lower, slower, and with less of a defensive armament. Anyone really claiming an advantage of one over the other is missleading or doesn't understand the fundamental principles at play.

0:12 in 1981 age 5 at cosford, i was allowed into the cockpit of their mosquito sat in the pilot seat and moved the control surfaces and stick. omg it was the best experience i honestly have ever had 41 years later. i wish i could thank the guy who said "do you want a go inside"

Due to a few things I would choose the B-17. Once the chin turret was added it became a formidable adversary but the 2 pilots and easier escape are the clinchers for me. The one thing I was amazed by, was the size of the B-17. Growing up, watching war movies of the 40s and 50s, I always imagined the plane as some large behemoth. In my 40s I finally had the pleasure to see one up close and realized just how small they really are. To fly for hours in it with your crewmates must have been an experience that I can never fully appreciate. True heroes.

@IamDude2

2 ай бұрын

You need twice as many pilots to be trained or replaced for a B17 and for half the payload, in terms of a war vehicle the Lanc was far more an effective machine

In regards to the Lanc and night missions, there were Lanc pathfinder units that would fly ahead of the main force to drop incendiary flares to light the target. I'm about the "stealth" the Lancs provide. My grandfather wad also a surviving tail gunner. I recall reading his log books and running into Me 262.

@CalibanRising

Жыл бұрын

Wow, that must have been terrifying!

@peterforden5917

Жыл бұрын

I too lived at Duxford late 50's early 60's it was then what was called a Moribund station back then, my dad was based at Stradishall , there was a bit of life in 1960 (I think) when Stradishall''s main runway was rebuilt and we had Gloster Meteor´s zooming around one of my favorite bases, Ternhill being the other :)

Thanks for the great content! I must admit I’m biased because my dad was a B17 flight engineer and top turret gunner but I’d prefer to crew in the B17. They were so durable and relatively well armed that I think my survival chances would be a little better than in the Lancaster - plus I think I’d be too tall to be the ball turret gunner. That might change my answer if I was shorter.

Great video. One thing I saw elsewhere is the the cruising speed of the fort was about 280 empty, but decreased to 187 mph in order the ranges they needed to fly when fully loaded. The relative slowness of the B-17 was a huge concern compared to other bombers.

Being an ex-pilot in the cold war in Coastal Command for me I would choose the Lancaster. You can guess why? The plane I flew for many, many hours, mostly low level, was based on the Lancaster although a very different aircraft by the end of its demise the Shackleton was well loved by all crew members.

According to Dr mark felton, the Lancaster was the only plane at the time that was big enough to carry the atomic bombs until the b-29 was introduced in 1944

@nickdanger3802

Жыл бұрын

Since the US did not have any A bombs until July 1945 that hardly matters. Do you think the US was going to put the most top-secret weapon in a plane with one pilot? The Fat Man bomb would not fit in the bomb bay of a Lanc any more than the Grand Slam bomb.

@buckfaststradler4629

Жыл бұрын

"Dr" Mark was talking bollocks - check out Greg's Airplanes on You Tube for proof

@Walker_Bulldog

Жыл бұрын

Since there were no atomic bombs before 1945 that doesn't really seem like much of a handicap for the Americans.

@kirktravis5780

Жыл бұрын

Listen I love mfp but the whole lancaster was a serious consideration for the a bomb is not real. Not enough range, couldn't fit in the bombay, on and on plus records say the u.s. barely looked into it because the lanc bombay was not connected to the crew. They only armed fatty and boy moments before dropping them. Imagine a hot a bomb landing on tinian after a return landing from weather or mech problems?

@SloppySalad

Жыл бұрын

I only came here to say that Mark Felton has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. If you enjoy his fictitious novels, then that says a lot about you and the facts you believe. That is all.

I used to live near Niagara Falls, Ontario. In the summer the Lancaster from the Hamilton Air Museum would fly over my house on its tourist flight. Loved that sound and I would rush out to watch it rumble past every chance I could. The museum flies the plane regularly and you can pay to get on a flight. All money going to the up keep of their fleet, which they also fly. So, for me its hands down the Lancaster. Spoke to my friends Uncle who was in the war, and lived a long life. Told him how much I loved the sound of that plane flying past. He looked at me and said "Imagine a hundred of them." Must have been incredible to see that.

Thank you for this video. Growing up in the States it was natural to be interested in the B-17. I come from an Air Force family even up to the present day. My son in law was stationed at Wright Patterson AFB in Ohio which is nearby to the home of the US Air Force Museum in Dayton so we went to visit. They not only had a B-17 in the hangar but also a cutaway of the hull showing the crew positions. bomb load and specs on performance. It took up to 9 guys to fly one mission and the bomb load seemed small, largely inaccurate and the casualties in '43 and '44 were staggering. Fair to say now I wouldn't want to fly either one! When I was growing up veterans including my dad were raising families and most weren't interested in talking to kids about the war. Years later I did get to interview a B-17 bombardier who led a raid deep into Germany and was shot down in 1944. i asked him, "What were you most afraid of?" He said without hesitation, "Not doing my job. It meant some other guys would have to go back and risk their life because I failed." I'd bet anything that a Lancaster man would say the same. Last note. I asked, "What did the plane smell like after flak hit and you'd been wounded?" As if it had happened that morning he said, "Gasoline."

Lancaster's were also built in Toronto, Canada during WW11, one stands (flies), around thirty ft on a concrete plinth, on parkland just west of the city (walking) next to the old Exhibition Stadium where the Blue Jays (Baseball team), had their home before Skydome.

I was at Duxford for the 75th anniversary of D Day in 2019. I took a virtual flight on a Lancaster. My buddy Mike, who served in the USAF and later the U. S. Coast Guard was along with me. Neither of us could speak after that experience. Yes, the Lanc has my respect, but the crews, any crews, who served during WWII have my undying respect!!!! Yes, I saw the memorial to the bomber crews as well. I am not worthy!!! But for me, put me in a P-47. 😍

@guaporeturns9472

Жыл бұрын

I’m a Thunderbolt guy too.

All factors considered, I'd go with the B-17. Lancaster seemed less likely to be attacked by fighters, being a night bomber, but the heavier defensive armament of the fortress made it significantly more likely to survive an attack. Psychologically, that's more reassuring to me. On an aside, I once read an article claiming that the overall casualties of allied heavy bombers would have been considerably less had they not carried machine guns (weight saving, and much reduced crews) but that could be a myth

obviously being a Brit,i loved the Lancaster but i salute all those allied flyers from all countries who helped win the war,Im watching Masters of the Air at the moment,God Bless those American boys who joined us in the fight xx

If I could choose any bomber in WWII, it would be the Mosquito. But, given this specific choice, I think I would go with the B-17, due to its ability to absorb a lot of damage and it's defensive firepower. It would at least let me feel like I had a fighting chance... Great video!

@davidcross8028

8 ай бұрын

It may have had good defensive armament, but that meant its primary role was lessened - dropping bombs - for that the Lancaster every time.

@gregorturner9421

8 ай бұрын

i think both have their good and bad and different operational concepts so i personally don't think they are a good 'matchup' lancaster became a night bomber, B-17 a day bomber, the 17 was designed to operate as large groups with overlapping firepower for protection but this came at the cost of bomb load. hell even the mossie could carry more bombs. the lanc sacrificed defense for bomb load. so individually pound for pound the lanc wins due to its capacity to do more damage on its run, but relied on stealth. the 17 instead carries less for added survivability and was used in large and very large groups to carry the same load but during the day when fighters had a better chance of intercept and that massive firepower as needed. once the merlin mustangs (because the original american engined mustang was useless but when they married the merlin engine brit and american engineering produced a thing of beauty) came on line the need for such firepower was reduced as the long range fighters took over the defence role and the lanc comes into its own due to its larger payload.

@vnurcombe

8 ай бұрын

Lancaster I think vastly superior…. Too many men on a B17. The guns almost never hit anything. B17 could only carry 6000 pounds of bombs at 200 knots. Lancaster 22,000 lbs at 280 knots.

@realhorrorshow8547

8 ай бұрын

I agree, if you want to get home - and hit the target. it's a Mozzie every time.

@johngregory4801

5 ай бұрын

​​@@gregorturner9421Not for nothing, but an Allison-powered P-51A would eat a Merlin-powered P-51B or D for breakfast below 15,000'. The only thing the V-1760 lacked to equal the Merlin above 15,000 was the two-speed two-stage supercharger. American manufactures refused to develop one before the Merlin took over because the Navy was their primary customer, and Grumman didn't want or need a plane to operate above 15,000.

I loved the B-17 and the Lancaster, as a boy growing up (I am 65 now). Both fulfilled their mission masterfully, but don't shortchange the B-24. It had some drawbacks, but was able to carry a larger bomb load, faster than a 17. It's design also allowed for easier production, many being produced at Ford Motor Co., on Henry Ford's assembly lines. Al 3 were marvelous at what they did, and saved the world when we needed them.

Fun Lancaster fact: Norman Ramsey, head of the delivery group at Los Alamos petitioned to use a Lancaster to conduct drop tests on the bomb casing used for Fat Man as the Silverplate B-29s were not ready. This was naturally refused by the higher-ups but in an ironic twist, the bomb release gear for Fat Man and Little Boy proved inadequate, with test casings frequently falling off in flight and damaging the bomb doors. Consequently the release gear from a Lancaster was used instead. Also, while the Manhattan Project was estimated to have cost around $2 billion, the development costs for the B-29 ran to around $3.5 billion.

@nickdanger3802

8 ай бұрын

Interesting, B29 Silver Plates used one part from a Lanc. Almost 50% of Lanc's were fitted with Lend Lease Packard Merlin's. The Lancaster and Atomic Bombs, My Response to Mark Felton kzread.info/dash/bejne/mX92j9GqlNLKpdo.html

I met Laurie Woods DFC once, he was just a little old man with a chest full of medals signing books in a quiet newsagents. Had a great chat to him and I offered to buy his book which he kindly signed. I was a student CPL pilot at the time and we had a great chat about all things planes. I read the book that week as was astonished at his exploits, he was a bomb aimer who TWICE had to take the controls from a pilot killed/wounded and land the plane back safely. I think he was with 425Sqn which was RAAF but like he said, it didn't really matter every squadron was a mixed bag of RAF, RAAF, RCAF, RNZAF etc

Was in a B17G ,Aug. 15 ,2016 visiting Sudbury Ontario for a few days ,$400 🇨🇦 for a ride. But flying in planes or helicopters is fun,so it was worth it. Sentimental Journey is the bombers name. It was not roomy or comfy ,especially ball turret. Thrilling though flying around the city, over the main mall. If Lancs couldn't wing it as high as a B17 ,then flying fortress is my answer.

I read a book on the WWII German Fighter Defense based on actual pilot anecdotes. Given a choice with late war daylight raids -they would rather attack the Lancasters.

@bentighe4811

Жыл бұрын

What book? I'd like to read it.

@peterforden5917

Жыл бұрын

@@bentighe4811 Its a great pity the early war bombers are often forgotten along with their crews, Whitleys, Hampdens, Blenheims Wellingtons and the like, and lets not forget Coastal Commands , aircraft all the Shorts aircraft and even faithfull Annie, the Avro Anson not forgetting the various De Havilland biplane aircraft that were given bomb racks for an invasion that never came, even Glosters immortal gladiators did their bit for King and Country, too many fine planes and crews forgotten :(

A good video. One point to note is that the photo on an RAF bomber with the damage to the upper fuselage is actually that of a Halifax that had been the recipient of some “friendly fire” from above in the shape of a bomb from another aircraft above it. Look at the tail fins. Not that anyone wants to talk about the Halifax, fine aircraft though it was….

Lancaster for me. Those old movies really sum up the inventiveness of the designers and the bravery of the men who flew them. But the Flying Fortress is very close and just as brave. Great video.

As a kid, I built Airfix models of both. The Lancaster always won my imaginary battles. The Rolls-Royce Merlin engines sounded so good. But, seriously, the Lancaster had such a big long bomb bay. So versatile.

@hughgeeraerts738

Жыл бұрын

Anyway...nothing can beat the sound of four V12 Rolls-Royce "Merlin's" ☺️

"Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles" has a great video explaining why the B 17's altitude advantage is significant for reducing losses (especially from flak) in daylight raids. Also, these planes were vey rarely carrying max loads, or at max speed, or max altitude, or flying max ranges. (Yes, the Grand Slam was the max Lancaster load, but those were shorter-range missions.) IMO, the Lancaster was better for night, the Fortress better for day.

@Nightdare

Жыл бұрын

The attacks on Tirpitz were anything but short range missions Fættenfjord is further away than Berlin from the UK

@keithparkinson6170

Жыл бұрын

The Tirpitz raid flew from Russia towards home.

@Nightdare

Жыл бұрын

@@keithparkinson6170 Yes, Yagodnik USSR was used as refueling base AFTER the raid This was during Paravene, when Tirpitz was too far north for the bombers to return to Scotland on maximum fuelload Still doesn't make the attacks on Tirpitz Short range missions

@ShortArmOfGod

Жыл бұрын

How was the Lancaster better for night.

@fredkruse9444

Жыл бұрын

@@ShortArmOfGod short answer: lack of altitude wasn't as important at night. Better answer: See the Greg's video.

B-17 vs Lancaster - Crew members were more likely to survive a crash landing in a B-17. I think the same goes for water ditching. B-17s that belly landed at an airfield were sometimes put back into flight condition. Photos of RAF crashes are not as common as USAAF photos and I don't think I've ever seen an intact crash landed Lancaster. As for escaping a damaged plane, the bomb bay of a B-17 was used (Supposedly the doors were spring loaded to open with 200 lbs pressure) and there were three exit hatches (Plus the waist windows) the Lancaster had two hatches and I guess the nose one is considered a fatal flaw. Another important consideration is daylight. Inside a pitch-black Lancaster fuselage scrambling to snap on your parachute, open and exit from the side fuselage hatch then hit the ground in your parachute in the dark - not knowing if you'll land in a lake or a pond, much less a tree... well... In daylight, at least you could see what you and your fellow crewmen were doing (and find your chute) as well as see the ground coming up at you when floating down. Bailing out over the Channel was different in daylight vs night too.

My grandfather is a navigator in a lancaster. Did 30 missions during 1942 to 1943. Did training in Lancasters for the rest of the war in Scotland. I think he was very lucky to get through those 30 missions. He was asked to do another 30 but he chose the training job. thanks for the information.

The Norden bombsight was developed and tested in a desert atmosphere where the air pressure and temperature is relatively uniform. This allowed for only minor winds at a higher altitude to affect the drift of the bomb when released. When they got to the Western European theatre they found themselves in a completely different mix of temperatures and winds at varying heights. All of which affected the bomb while it was in flight to target.

@philgiglio7922

Жыл бұрын

Compared to the conditions over Japan, the jet stream, European weather wasn't as bad. Bombing accuracy was virtually non-existent... that's why LeMay switched to medium level raids, and firebombing tactics. He even said, " we better win this war or I'll be tried as a war criminal"

@marcuswardle3180

Жыл бұрын

@@philgiglio7922 When they dropped the first atomic bomb they used the Norden bombsight and missed the aiming point by 800metres! This is ironic seeing that the Norden bombsight (named after him) was developed by a committed Christian on the basis that the more accurate bombing the less casualties there would be!

@stephenarbon2227

Жыл бұрын

@@philgiglio7922 I can't comment generally on bombing raids over Japan. But I did look at the photos of a bombing raid on ball bearing ? factories in Akishi. The smoke was completely absent from residential part of the town, but obliterated the industrial area just to the west.

I got to go inside a B-17 at the Evergreen Air Museum in Oregon. It was an honor. It was much smaller than I expected. I would like to fly in either but I am happy that I never had to do a mission in either since it was a near death sentence.

good observation about the wingspar, that among other things, apparently, led to a much lower survival rate among air crews in lancasters when compared to 17s. The 17s were favored among american crewmen over 24's too, which had a tendency to either catch on fire or have their wings fall off, I cant remember which. I'd also never considered the implications of trying to escape at night, that was a cool point. I had the chance to see the lancaster up close when i visited london a couple of years ago - as far as looks and impression it was the clear winner over the 17, in my opinion, although I think i'd fly in the 17 if I had the choice. Good video, I really enjoyed it! I really liked the p51 jab about the us not being a thing without the brits, which is true, but it always makes me giggle when it gets brought up

I was lucky enough to get to ride in the Liberty Belle about 6 months before she was lost. First flight of the day got to sit on board through start up while the engines warmed up. I remember the smell of the smoke clouds that came through the cabin. Was probably one of the top ten coolest things I have ever experienced in my life. These old warbirds are disappearing. Just a couple of weeks ago at an air show in Dallas a B17 and a P63 Kingcobra were lost in a collision. Please support restoration projects for these beautiful old machines it is not a cheap process. And say a prayer for the men who were lost trying to let people experience the thrill of seeing these machines in the air the place they belong. I am sure Terry Barker, Craig Hutain, Kevin Michels, Dan Ragan, Leonard Root, and Curt Rowe would appreciate it.

As an American I'll open by saying one of my teen favorite aviation films was An Appointment in London (1951) when I finally found it on DVD I purchased a PAL copy from Ireland and used a computer to convert it to NTSC so I could watch on my television, about 2005. A PIII needing 30 hours to re-code 2hr of film. I have been to the RAF Museum London, seeing the planes from the outside and twice to the codebreakers school at Milton-Keynes. I think of the Tirpitz and Moore-Eder-Slope Dam raids as highlights of the European theater air combat. Now to your question: It would be the B-17. Why? Survivability, (as you started to mention @14 mins) in that the Boeing aircraft had three escape hatches compared to the single on the Lancaster. Furthermore on the lower turret position just think how many crew were lost not just to the blind spot, but the H2S blasting their position to the fighter waiting to play a little jazz solo on their fuel tanks.

@hughgeeraerts738

Жыл бұрын

And ...as being an American...it would have been predictable that you would go for the B17 ☺️ !

@davidfrost779

Жыл бұрын

Appointment in London (1953) actually

@vcv6560

Жыл бұрын

@@davidfrost779 okay, np. I was going from memory.

@deargdoom8743

3 ай бұрын

Plenty of Brits on here voting for the Lancaster, but nobody is criticising them for being predictable. Why can't people just respect each other's opinions?

There is nothing that sounds like a Lancaster! The noise alone seals it for me. I am just so glad that there will be more flying soon. Another being restored to flight worthy in England and one that Kermit Weeks has, however unknown when he will get to it, someone needs to fund that. That with the two currently flying would be magnificent. I would give anything i had to see four Lancaster's flying in formation. I was very excited to see 21 Spitfires flying in formation, and that was just on KZread. Nothing beats the glorious music of the Rolls Royce Merlin!

@anthonyhulse1248

3 ай бұрын

Well, four spits sound like a Lancaster… but, yes, what a glorious sound.

@Surv1ve_Thrive

3 ай бұрын

Rolls Royce

As a young teenager my friends dad would stay late at work so that he could pick us up for the drive home (15 miles) after Air Cadets on Wednesdays. Often I would be freed-up from my tasks earlier than the others and he would tell stories to me of his wartime flying career, mostly of his time in the pathfinders and in 617 squadron. A few of his reflections were brought back while I watched the video. One that stands out in my memory was his response to my question: "What was your favorite plane for pathfinder duties?" His response surprised me. He had operated at least three types and he preferred the Boston with a close second being the Lancaster. He said that manoeverability was excellent with all three (the least preferred was the Mosquito). I asked for details. He laughed as he reflected on handling it "like a fighter", and explained that pathfinders did not carry a bombload per se, but rather flares, and that these were much lighter than bombs. I have carried a vision of him pursuing a night fighter ever since. He joined 617 squadron after Gibson had moved on and was on all tree Tirpitz raids. He also told me that he flew at least one pendulum raid in support of the Warsaw Uprising and which was a closely kept secret at the time (and apparently remains either secret - or is simply forgotten) due to the concerns of both Josef Stalin and FDR. He considered the pendulum raids among the most challenging and said that the AC was "still at full boost and staggering to get above 10,000 feet" as they crossed the Danish coast heading East. In your essay, you did fail to mention that 9 sqn RAF Also participated in the Tirpitz raids, using the same Lancaster type 6's with 32 AC being credited with taking off and 9 failing to take off due being snowed-in.

Great comparison, as much as I love the Lancaster and Halifax I think the book Lucky 666 really warms me to the B17 😊