I wasn't under the impression that there were any iconic US bombers in Europe. The B-17 certainly never captured the same ammount of imagination as the well-romanticised Lancaster.
@peepeevagi Why would that be? The B-17 carried a maximum bomb load of 8,000 lbs- on SHORT range missions ie France. B-17 could carry no more than 4,000 lb to Berlin. Lancs had a maximum load of 22,000 lbs, they routinely carried 14,000 lbs to Berlin. The Mosquito, with a crew of two carried 4,000 lbs to Berlin at a much higher speed than the B-17. Sorry son, there is no doubt about it, the Lancaster was THE outstanding four engined heavy of WW2. B-17 doesn't even come close to it.
@ 1:14 I noticed you can see in passed the nose cone of the engine however if it has the "dambuster" bomb on board the plane that carried it was a Canadian made Lancaster MK X and the nose cone is covered over i also have a fight manual from 1942 on the MK X with pics
Ok will concede that the video chops and changes between models mid flight but that doesnt mean the inconsistencies arent there. colored gauges? fighter sqn ID's? still say get it right
My friend - it's YOU that needs to get it right! Not only are the markings quite correct, but the standard TR1154/55 general purpose Marconi transmitter and receiver fitted to almost ALL RAF. did indeed have those coloured knobs.
this video is crap. the close ups show the wrong type of engine (check for your self)if you are going to make cgi at least do some research and grt it right !!!
What site did you get this from? Awsome vid 5 stars the only thing this bomber didn't have that the B-17 did was a gunner under the plane AKA "Lower Gunner" but i still like this plane better WHAT SITE U GET THIS FROM?
predator i think this guys in brittan y would the brits (i hope u dont mind me sayin that)recognise an american plane wen the landcaster did almost as much
The Lancaster was the only allied bomber which had a big enough bomb bay to accomodate the Grand Slam bomb. In Europe there were more B24 Liberators than B17's.
i also thought this many years ago until I learned up on the Lancaster. The Lancaster was a better bomber in many aspects. You could go to a bombing site with less bombers and achieve more damage than a B-17. The B-17 however can go about 1000 miles further than the Lancaster. But these bombers primarily did northern europe bombing so either bomber would do. (I'd go with the Lancaster to cause more damage.) And have you not heard of the famous dam busters.... geesh!
Here's to the bomber that sank the Tirpitz!
boeing521 1 year ago
definately the most iconic bomber, and its British
beauf1ght3r 3 years ago 8
@beauf1ght3r I personally think that the b17 is more iconic.
charpsteve36 1 year ago
Most iconic?
Not by a long shot compared to the US bombers in europe.
peepeevagi 3 years ago
I wasn't under the impression that there were any iconic US bombers in Europe. The B-17 certainly never captured the same ammount of imagination as the well-romanticised Lancaster.
BamBogleBlaster 3 years ago 16
it sure was close.
i think one of the most iconic airplanes of ww2 was the Mosquito.
Null81 2 years ago
For me it has to be the Spitfire or the Junkers JU87
vikingraider1 2 years ago
@peepeevagi Why would that be? The B-17 carried a maximum bomb load of 8,000 lbs- on SHORT range missions ie France. B-17 could carry no more than 4,000 lb to Berlin. Lancs had a maximum load of 22,000 lbs, they routinely carried 14,000 lbs to Berlin. The Mosquito, with a crew of two carried 4,000 lbs to Berlin at a much higher speed than the B-17. Sorry son, there is no doubt about it, the Lancaster was THE outstanding four engined heavy of WW2. B-17 doesn't even come close to it.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 month ago
@ 1:14 I noticed you can see in passed the nose cone of the engine however if it has the "dambuster" bomb on board the plane that carried it was a Canadian made Lancaster MK X and the nose cone is covered over i also have a fight manual from 1942 on the MK X with pics
timberwolf7102james 3 years ago
great vid i like the way it turns from black and white to colour
Zappyboy12 3 years ago
Ok will concede that the video chops and changes between models mid flight but that doesnt mean the inconsistencies arent there. colored gauges? fighter sqn ID's? still say get it right
kiewa1 4 years ago
My friend - it's YOU that needs to get it right! Not only are the markings quite correct, but the standard TR1154/55 general purpose Marconi transmitter and receiver fitted to almost ALL RAF. did indeed have those coloured knobs.
pj. Ex-RAF Radio Fitter.
SueVlackey 2 years ago
this video is crap. the close ups show the wrong type of engine (check for your self)if you are going to make cgi at least do some research and grt it right !!!
kiewa1 4 years ago
?? The Rolls-Royce Merlin?
They look quite identicle to my resource.
EatYourBeans 3 years ago
if u didnt like it then y did u watch it? and u can go and make one about it ur self
doomdevil107 3 years ago
i agree
sp800 4 years ago
What site did you get this from? Awsome vid 5 stars the only thing this bomber didn't have that the B-17 did was a gunner under the plane AKA "Lower Gunner" but i still like this plane better WHAT SITE U GET THIS FROM?
greekdude75 4 years ago
YANKS IN OTHER WORDS AMERICANS >:p
penglon 4 years ago
predator i think this guys in brittan y would the brits (i hope u dont mind me sayin that)recognise an american plane wen the landcaster did almost as much
wildhart7 4 years ago
lets face it , the Yanks needed bigger bombers to get the job done , oh and to carry the all the extra crew to handle the machine guns.
alaneastjones 4 years ago
The Lancaster was the only allied bomber which had a big enough bomb bay to accomodate the Grand Slam bomb. In Europe there were more B24 Liberators than B17's.
McLarenMercedes 5 years ago
wrong, the most iconic WWII bomber undoubtely the B-17
predatorec 5 years ago
The b17 had a bomb load of 6000lb compared to the lancaster's 18000lb, so the Flying Fortress counts as a medium bomber, not a heavy bomber.
xen300 5 years ago
i also thought this many years ago until I learned up on the Lancaster. The Lancaster was a better bomber in many aspects. You could go to a bombing site with less bombers and achieve more damage than a B-17. The B-17 however can go about 1000 miles further than the Lancaster. But these bombers primarily did northern europe bombing so either bomber would do. (I'd go with the Lancaster to cause more damage.) And have you not heard of the famous dam busters.... geesh!
d0rkiishchris 5 years ago
dambusters FTW =D
tommern89 5 years ago
Blimey I though they all had Merlins!
Thanks for the interesting info
robbyc0 5 years ago
How come it suddenly acquires radial engines half way through the demo?
robbyc0 5 years ago
@robbyc0 different variant
alexgets98 2 months ago