I disagree

So no it didn,t I think the moskito cared more.

Too many people talk about absolutes. They shouldn't be talking about how much weight in bombs an aircraft could carry, they should be talking about the whole payload. The B-17 was officially "billed" as having a combat load of 20,000 lbs. This is pretty much meaningless unless you consider how much of that load is defense weaponry, how much is fuel, and how much is the actual bomb load. Now, here's the rub. Shorter missions meant heavier bomb loads. Deep pushes into enemy territory meant more fuel, thus a lighter bomb load. We need to remember that the design maximum bomb load for a B-17G both internal and external ordinance was 17,000 lbs, NOT 4000 lbs as I've seen repeated here. The claims that the Mossie's bomb load equaled the B-17's max bomb load is nonsense. Also... as outlined in Roger Freeman's writings, the maximum design takeoff weight of the B-17G models (~65,000 lbs, give or take) was exceeded many times as a matter of routine. Several times there were B-17s loaded to the gills with payload to include max fuel and internal bomb load and took off weighing over 72,000 lbs. There were numerous instances of B-17s loaded so heavy they would crack through the runways lining up for takeoff. Another aviation expert historian who is very sharp at this sort of thing (Lanc vs Fort) explained in great detail how for all practical purposes when range vs payload of both airplanes was considered, neither the B-17 nor the Lancaster carried any more load than the other. Both good airplanes, the Lanc had a larger bomb bay than the B-17, but the B-17 could carry more bombs via it's ability to carry external stores, not unlike the B-52 that hangs the additional ordinance from shackles under the wings, although this was seldom done in the ETO since the USAAF was looking for max range first, and largest bomb load second, and external stores cause lots of drag. This is why a lot of times B-17s would arrive over a distant target with only 2000 lbs of bombs... because they had to carry so much fuel to get to the target that the trip could take 18 hours to get there and back, leave at dawn and return after dark. This is where the "Tokyo" tanks would be put to use. All in all, the Lanc and B-17 when compared in all categories had close statistics and specifications. There was no real tactical or strategic advantage that either airplane held over the other. By the way, to say (mentioned by someone in this same forum) that the B-29 could "carry about the same" as a Lancaster borders upon ludicrous. The B-29 excelled in every category over the Lanc, as well as just about everything else that flew in WW-II and that is an absolute fact. Higher ceiling, climb rate vs payload, armament (just about everything else that carried bombs had better defensive armament than the Lanc, ESPECIALLY the B-17), cruise speed and top speed, as well as mission endurance of the B-29 was all considerably better than the Lanc. Last note: The B-29, using external bomb shackle mounts ala the B-17 and other US bombers of the period, was capable of carrying (if need be) TWO each 22,000 lb Grand Slam bombs... "about the same" as two AVRO Lancs. This tactic was considered, and tested, during War Department discussions on whether or not to deploy B-29s in the ETO, but the plan was cancelled when it was determined that the B-17 would be adequate as-is for the 8th AF's efforts against German targets. Thus, the B-29s went to the Pacific to reinforce (replace?) the B-24s which lacked the range to strike mainland Japan from US-held airfields. ;-)

That is probably because it was featured in the fighter section, which it was, not a bomber.

@@drstevenrey The Mosquito was extensively used as a bomber, because it was designed as a bomber and later also used as a fighter.

Its not suspected, Goring would always say that in private. Same applied to the a Me 109 as a "Sports" craft.

FPVREVIEWS, yeah a bit farcical and simplistic that one, especially as the narration was British in origin. Lol.

The skipping drum bombs were simply an oil drum filled with explosives. They would drop them a good distance from the dam and the drum would skip over the water until it hit the dam. Kaboom.

@@banjoboy1941 a touch simplistic old Son ~ speed, Height. precise distance, drum RPM, barometric pressure fuse etc ~ and of course a dollop of Luck

@@allandavis8201 Of course ..nothing that wasn't American ever happened. Wearing a bit thin now, that one!

@@banjoboy1941 Wrong. They would bounce/skip across the water with a backspin so when the hit the wall they would descend/sink to a predetermined depth and than *KABOOM* . Apologies if I seem pedantic.

no

Maybe you should do it

FYI the normal bomb load for the Lancaster day or night to Berlin was 5,400lb For the B17 4,200lb that is from official reports, As that is the whole point of bombers i would say that is the most relevant point irrespective of whether it be day or night or what self defence the aircraft is designed to carry?

notwocdivad did you saw gregs video? I would recomend you to do so. His whole channel Is a hidden gem Cheers

The 2 engine, 2 crew Mosquito bomber could carry a 4,000lb cookie to Berlin at twice the speed of a B-17. The DH-98 makes the B-17 look obsolete.

You need a hobby ha ha

Stephen Howlett you are right, propeller driven aircraft do seem to have a personality, a beating heart that moulds pilot and aircraft into one cohesive team. But their are,in my opinion, jet aircraft that are the same, for instance, the Vulcan, sleek and menacing, the F4 Phantom, big and all muscle and power, the Rafael, sleek beyond belief a French Ferrari, the A-10 “Hog” not much to look at but the guys on the ground were so reassured by it presence and distinctive sound. I think I could go on and on, but I won’t as it is just my opinion.

@@allandavis8201 I think the mistique is the same. I was a professional aviator for 42 years, flying both, and all have their soul.. BTW, the correct name of the French A/C, it's "RAFALE", (meaning a gust of wind, or a burst of machine-gun automatic fire).

Who cares

getredytagetredy - might be an airshow film ; not ww2 ?

That is the B-25 "Photo Fanny" which can still be seen operating by the Planes of Fame air museum in Chino, California U.S.A.

saw your comment, went to 1:53 - WOW, that guy had the worst job of the Air Force! I hope he had warm coat!

Mariusz Fidzinski american industry did

very succesful double decker buses lol

@@johnturner561 With American high octane gas and materials. American high octane gas is what made the Merlin great. The often badmouthing about the American's Allison is because of ignorance and stupidity. The Allison was significantly faster than the spitfire in low to medium altitudes. It was significantly better than the Merlin, had half of the moving internals parts and was better engineered. The American government controlled things like superchargers, tires and consequential the Allison only received a single stage blower. The P-38 suffered greatly because of this as well . The German's had to get by on 87-89 octane gas. The German's had an excellent blower set-up on the 109. The American's made 100-130-150 octane gas available to the British. Without it the British pilots would have been decimated.

@@chopchop7938 i dont remember saying anything about the merlins or high octane fuel i only refered to the british bomber being like a double decker bus

Chop Chop as usual the Americans save the day and won the war, all on their own, wow you are so conceited and arrogant, WWII was won by the combined efforts of many nations all of them bringing different things to the war. Oh and by the way, the Merlin engine was being used long before the war started and was not poorly engineered, in fact it was precision made by Rolls Royce, the engines used by American aircraft were made under license by Packard, so not actually a British problem if they were poorly made, that was an American failure. It’s a shame people like you come out whenever anything you don’t like being said or pointed out against America occurs, so sad. And just to be clear, the Spitfire is an aircraft, the Allison is an engine, so the Allison can’t be faster than a Spitfire. Ok!!!!!!

Major omission..

I believe they covered it in the fighter episode

@@bartfoster1311 But I believe the Mosquito bomber variant could carry 4,000lb... nearly as much as the Fortress... should have been included.

Some of us are tired of the INCESSANT praising of that over-rated flying piano crate. Give it a rest, will ya?

@@warplanner8852 Fuck off you POS

9.45

where is the Mossie ??

@@andyb.1026 Exactly, NO mention of the fastest, most versatile twin engine plane of WW2 Obviously an American made programme as half the British planes mentioned were American. The one redeeming comment came with the Lancaster, bomb load 14,000 lb, up to 10 tons, the B17 4000lb The Mosquito could carry that much!!!

Mosquito not a bomber. Fighter-bomber......B29 could pick up a Mosquito and a grand slam bomb and fly them 2000 miles. Look up "B29 carrying TWO grand slam bombs"..

.. Beaufighter??

@@coreyandnathanielchartier3749 i think the post was mosquito could carry the same payload as a B17G FLYING FORTRESS The B29 was never mentioned, not by me anyway?

No it doesn't. LOL!!

@@4FYTfa8EjYHNXjChe8xs7xmC5pNEtz Take a second look; Solid landing gear, Slotted aft flaps, Inverted Gull-wing, Inline V-engine, rear gunner in the same 'glasshouse', Center bomb on a 'sling-arm'... You are either blind, or think Junkers came up with the 87 a year-and-half later, by, um "chance"? They sure didn't copy the Biplane 'Helldiver' here...

And rightly so :P It's main role was anti-shipping and recon because it was too weak (being a converted airliner/mail plane). Operational losses where it 'broke it's back' were frequent.

Wasn't Tallboy a bomb?

What have you become?

I think "tail end charlie" was the name if referring to the rear gunner. Tallboy was a bloody big bomb.

Mark Paul They and other “educational” documentaries got replaced with reality garbage pickers, pawn shop owners and people catching animals bare handed in the wild- for ratings. I guess history isn’t entertaining enough?

It was the most produced American bomber of WW2.

How many German U-Boats did the Lancasters sink? Given how close Germany came to starving Britain into submission in the Battle of the Atlantic, how did the Lancaster help?

@@bf945 The real figures suggest otherwise. Still, it makes for good flag-waving material so that myth persists.

Zdzichu S. Of course it wasn't, ask the Russians, LAGG, YAK, Polikarpov, and early MIGs, all were wooden to a large extent but you must realise that most programmes , histories, books all have an agenda to make something, the biggest, the first or the unique, but of course all countries try similar things if they can afford to. It is an endearingly childish concept on how to impress.

Germany tried as well, their adhesives technology wasn't up to snuff.

Correct, many countries built or tried to build wooden aircraft, the Mosquito was not even the only wooden aircraft in the RAF, the Hurricane an Wellington both had partial sections made of wood. Can I ask, what is your problem with the narration? I might be being dumb but I didn’t catch anything wrong with it.

@@philgiglio9656 .................... Mm/m

Ralph Bernhard they make on little mistake and the armchair warriors come out to troll.

Robert Bania, agreed, but as the British proved with the mosquito, wooden planes can be both fast and effective, and other British aircraft were partially made of wood.

Betty bomber wreaked havoc in the Pacific. Very stable, long range bomb platform. Very vulnerable to enemy action. What's your beef with that?

are you serious? Betty bombers wiped out british naval presence in the Pacific leaving only the us as a major force

Total failure? Betty bombers were the scourge of American ships in the Pacific. Maybe you should learn a thing or two before making stupid comments.

Marlusz Fidzinski WRONG the farther the Luftwaffe retreated the less effective they were. Bombers do not travel alone if the Germans would have engaged the allies before crossing .The channel the fighters would have to drop extra fuel tanks. Then they would not have been able to run wild on German targets of opportunity

No, you're wrong. 4,000 pounds were its usual load, it could take 8,000 pounds on shorter missions.

@@peer7727 It could carry 17,000 if some of it was external. The B-17's payload was actually the same as the Lancaster and it could carry it higher.

@@Mishn0 If your aunty had balls she could be your uncle. The B-17s normal load over Germany was 4000 pounds, the same as a Mosquito, risking the lives of ten men as opposed to two. Could and did are very different!

It had a max internal bomb load of 9600 lbs depending on type of bombs carried at a combat radius of a bit over 800 miles with full armament. That's a short range mission, as London to Berlin is 579 miles by air.

@Gary Tarr Average miss of bomb load for B17: 245 yards. Lancaster: 1243 yards. Most British bombers dropped early or blindly and ran for Olde England!

Army Regulation 670-1 American flag patch is to be worn right or left shoulder so that the star field faces forward or to the flags own right. Not wrong arm depending on decade or uniform type, class, section of the time in question. Too many people are working on problem that does not exist. (A real govern-mental produce) :p

NIGHT fighters

Did you know the B17 destroyed more Axis fighters than all Allied fighters combined? Ref: "Famous Bombers of The Second World War". William Green. British book.

It is a grammatically correct phrase, if a little stodgy. Bettys which were painted white with green crosses for wing and fuselage markings flew Japanese officers to Iwo Jima for surrender negotiations. Well, not much negotiating since we insisted on unconditional surrender.

You should lay of the crack pipe before you comment

@Old Guy's Place Mein frieund Your Notion of History is a tad warped.. Hitler never declared War on USA, the last thing Nazi Germany wanted was the USA in the War ~ due to its Manufacturing capacity ~ No Worries about its sub-standard Military.

Do you actually think Arthur Harris wouldn't have used an A bomb if available to him? Also Germany and Japan were actively pursuing their own A bomb programs, we got there first.

@@stevennaylor4053 Alemania nunca comenzó un programa de bomba atómica. Lo descartaron como una inversión inútil. a lo maximo que llegaron fue ha hacer una pila experimental.

@@stevennaylor4053 Several of the so called "Allies" and of the Axis possessed other types of weapons capable of causing enormous casualties(especially civilian) but didn't use them even against the enemy armed forces let alone civilians(in order to force the enemy to surrender)???!!!

No, the British dropped a-bombs on native Australians shortly after the war. They're still dying today from this.

Speed as Armor

The *first* stealth bomber.

Robert Herin WRONG the Luftwaffe bombed London first it was an accident. Even so the Germans started the war of they did not want to be bombed they should not have started a war

The truth be known actually Britain and France declared war when Germany invaded Poland. From Sept. 1939 to May 1940 essentially was the phony war or Sitzkrieg. Then the invasion of France May 1940. Yes one German bomber got lost and jettisoned it’s bombs on London. The crew was summoned to Berlin to explain themselves. Hitler had expressly forbidden air attacks on London. He was hoping against hope not to have to fight the West because he wanted to throw the entire Armed Forces of Germany against Soviet Russia the real enemy.