No you were wrong about Lanc bomb loads admit it
No, I was right! Early Modles could carry up to 14,000 pounds because that was the total that could be accomodated on the 14 bomb racks. Then later, after the introduction of "Short fin" bombs the planes on the production line were changed to have 18 bomb racks instead of 14, thus making the total maximum bomb load 18,000 pounds. Later still, they modified 31 to 33, I can not remember what number is correct, aircraft to carry Tallboy, or bouncing bomb, but not either, or both. Then much later in the war they modified some of those ~30 planes to tote Grand Slam. But in all of history, there were only ~30 Lancaster Aircraft that could cary any of the super bombs. As an aside some of the other "Normal" Lancs were modified to carry the 12,000 pound Light case bomb. IIRC, only about ~36 AC were thus converted. no you are wrong about the tallboy as shown that they phyically are incapable of been carried as well as being weel over its max load (rated at 18000lbs despite it not been able to carry such a bomb load) Technically, the later ~12,000 B-17E/F/G could carry up to 17,600 pounds, in spite of the bomb bay being "Rated" at 8,000 pounds! Tallboy Massed between 12-13,000 pounds! As you can see from above, you have missunderstood the entire argument about bomb load! The ability of the Lancaster to lift 14,000, or 18,000 pounds of bombs by the last 2/3s, or 3/4s of Lancaster AC, Only some of those ~30 "Specials" could cary Tallboy. Some could carry Grand slam, or Tallboy and some could cary the bouncing bomb. But an no time were there more than ~30 Aircraft that could carry any of the "Out sized" bombs! you were shown USAAF document that shows that only 2 2000lbs could actually fit in a b17 bay. No, the documents you posted were just as out of date as the claim that all Lancs could carry Tallboy, because they could all carry 18,000 pounds, which in it self is not true! Some of them could only cary LESS than 10,000 pounds depending on the type! how can a plane be signiificatly better (other than being smaller and more difficult to see) in a suprise attact? certaily a P38 was particualy bad at this being almost the size of 2 conventional fighters (the P47 wasnt much smaller) This is certainly true as far as it goes. There is much more to combat traits than just size, because IF that were the case all WW-II fighters would have been the size of the XP-77. The 109 was small but it was also one of the worst for visibility so whilst not being seen is good not being able to see is bad True!
you championed the XP77, a dog of a aircraft that was late, slow and a deathtrap, it was too small for its role, the 109 could be argued that it was boarderline in size for its role, certainly late was its size was a major cuse of its fall from its pinacle. The Germans decided that the -109 was still one of the best and most of their great aces chose to stay with it rather than switch to any thing else. but you are trying to maximise something that is pretty much out of the disgners hands, True, but still a fact of life! supprise is mainly a factor of situation not of aircraft design, if you can do little ablut the 93% then you need to help that 7% as nuch as possible, it is always easier to increase the low number rather than the large (by teh way I dont agree with your figures and nither does mike Spick)

your problem is that you dont ignore minor defects but all defects of your argument. ????
Few people will rate the P38 as the best fighter in ww2,So What? If everyone else jumps off a bridge... good it was, but no way the best, its performance untill late war was poor Lets see, it was the first aircraft to go over 400 MPH...  cruise speed is irrelevent if your aircraft is in  a BOB or B17 intercept missions or escort for that matter as the fighter needed to stay with the bombers You miss the entire point! Cruise speed IS combat speed for the vast majority of ALL combats! Plus, the early P-38 was able to "Cruise at 360 MPH when the early Spit was only good for 352 MPH TOP SPEED!!!!!
top speed is debateable as it wasnt untill very late did they match the opposition  Lets see, the early Spits were good for 352 MPH and the slowest P-38 of all time was good for ~400 MPH??? and even then were difficult to manage Only in that it was VERY difficult to advance the throttle from cruise to combat power! BUT it was almost as difficult to do that exact same thing in ALL fighter planes until the Fw-190!! untill automatic controls But this is not much different than all other planes of the times! and dive brakes (a sure sign that somethingisnt right when you need to fit these to keep the aircraft controlable )You confuse controlability with authority. The P-38 had problems with authority in steep dives at speeds that would cause the wings to come off of EARLY MODEL SPITFIRES! In addition it was considerably more agile in rate of roll and pitch athority than many European planes of WW-II.
roll rate is nice but not the panacea ypou claim you need it as a package and the p38 was outclassed in the eto Pure wishful thinking?counter rotating props are fine Esential! on a twin as you need two props anyway but on a single its just extra weight and complexity and only a benifit on the ground (why do you think they got so little adoption? ) There are several reasons why; cost, complexity, weight and others, but like retaining NARROW TRACK landing gear, those are all false answers incorectly arrived at!
plenty of ammo is good but the wieght of the ammo is not, ok by late war the engine power was suffcient to absorb the extra weight but in the early days having loads of extra ammo when you dig a creator in the ground is rather pointless!

the P47 might produce more power but it also bleeds more energy False. and does so faster, False again. a P47 is out turned by a spit, True under some conditions. it is also loses out in sustained dive and climbs, Not nearly as badly as you think. And depending on the model of Spitfire might easily out dive it for ANY distance! why would the spit run out of gas? Poor throttle and flight management! Even over home field. unless it was forced to fight outside its designed range It's "Designed Range was over 400 miles, yet there was no way to reach even HALF of that figure IF it was required to do so at the so called "Combat Cruise"! an argument you can apply to the p47 if you engage a p47 from norfolk over berlin And the Spit can get to Berlin how? then its going to be short of fuel, stop adjusting the argument to fit your choice, NO, it is a fact of life that the Spit was one, if not THE shortest legged plane of WW-II! Poor throttle management MAY have killed more Spits than any other plane in history! if the fight was over the spit base then the p47 loaded down with 700miles worth of fuel is going to be a sitting target (oh and with that amount of fuel on board its going to roll like the hinderburg) Wrong in so many ways! It is still going to out roll any early Spit with any load of gas up. p47 did not worry luftwaffe pilots That is not what they said! (even the few flown by allied aces) the Spits did, the Jug was a tank and if flown correctly was a dangerous opponent but it was never a true fighter Tell that to Jonny Jonson's targets, or the guy who shot down five Me-109s and Fw-190s in one dogfight! and would have been a libility in another enviroment it was basicaly addiquate given the roles it was asked to do (and by the way 20mm cannons made a right mess of a p47)