Wrong i wrong. A=A. Putting a lampshade over it and lying about it calling it right, does no good. It makes you look stupid.

See the cover photo of the F-4D on the book, IIRC, Killer Rays where the gun muzzles are plated over on both wings and the weapon of choice is the Sidewinders hung underneath! If they never used the guns and got rid of them before most other planes had guided missiles how significant are they.
How significant was the Attacker? So that is 1-1/2 out of how many dozens of other combat planes after WW-II? Right!

 

At this point, I will let the Shooter drivel nonsense and let rational minds judge.   

1. The B-17 was faster on less power than the Lancaster! A simple statement of fact.
2. The two planes had late war MTOs that were equal to 72,000 pounds.
3. the EEW of the B-17 was a few hundred pounds less than the Lancaster.
 

1, the B17 never carries more than 9200lbs on combat missions

2, the B17 never carried more than 4000lbs to long range targets

3, the B17 could not carry bombs beigger than 2000lbs internally

4, the B17 could not carry more than 2x 2000lbs internally

5, the Lancaster carried more bombs further than the B17 was capable of

6, the Lancaster carried larger bombs than could be carried by a B17

 

Not relevant!
  Not relevant!
  Not true!
  Not true.
  Not true! Since the B-17 carried about 1/3rd more gas than the Lancaster, and was more efficient aerodynamically, it could fly about 40-50% farther than the Lancaster at any given weight and altitude.
  As far as I know, no Lancaster mission ever carried any 2000 pound MC bombs. Although I freely admit that it could have done so if they replaced the 4,000 "Cookie" or replaced all five or six of the CL bomb shackles with three 2000 pound types evenly spaced down the length of the bomb bay, to carry three 2000 pound bombs.
 

Your entire point of all of the sub points above is proof that they chose to do those things at the expense of doing other things! Those were "Strategic" choices made for Strategic reasons! If the Lancaster had been required to fly in broad day light at higher altitudes to avoid flack while carrying more armor and weapons, the weight of those items would have subtracted from the bomb load. Then they would have been forced to increase fuel storage which would have forced a smaller bomb load. The addition of more weapons would have caused more drag and further reduced the range and bomb load. And finally, if required to form up into large masses of planes flying in formation, their range would have been reduced even further.
There is no magic here from either plane, B-17, or Lancaster. The rules of aerodynamics are immutable. The B-17 was faster on less power and thus more aerodynamic than the Lancaster. It was a more refined design that was stronger, but Massed less as proven by their Empty Equipped and Maximum Take Off Weights and reputations for toughness on one hand and frailty on the other.

Why bring up the 2,000 lb MC bomb specifically Shooter? Curious.

 

I can find plenty of evidence for Lancasters dropping the 2,000 lb HC and 2,000 lb AP bombs (typically six of each), but very little for the 2,000 lb MC. Perhaps because the 2000 MC bomb was very little used by the RAF during the war? 

 

From "Bombs Gone", the total numbers of each type dropped by Bomber Command:

22,000 lb MC 'Grand Slam' = 41
12,000 lb MC 'Tallboy' = 854
12,000 lb HC = 193
8,000 lb HC 'Super Cookie' = 1,088
4,000 lb HC 'Cookie' = 68,000
4,000 lb MC = 21,000
4,000 lb GP = 217
2,000 lb HC = 28,633
2,000 lb AP = <10,000
1,900 lb GP = 2,141
1,000 lb GP = 82,164
1,000 lb MC = 253,800
500 lb GP = 531,334
500 lb MC = 403,000
250 lb GP = 149,656
250 lb incendiary = 7,000
40 lb GP = 42,939
30 lb Phosphorus = 3,000,000
30 lb 'J' incendiary = 413,000
4 lb incendiary = 80,000,000

 

Why bring up the 2,000 lb MC bomb specifically Shooter? Curious.

Because the Lancaster's bomb bay is long, narrow and not very tall. The 2000 pound medium case bomb only fits on or near the planes CL. If it was required, the B-17 can carry eight of those bombs to the Lancaster's six. (But only with the bulged doors! Otherwise it's only three!) The B-17's bomb bay is short, but twice as wide and three times as tall as that fitted to the Lancaster. To take part in this argument, you have to get past what was done for strategic reasons and embrace the ideas of what could have been done IF it was required! Did you know that the last Lancs could carry 18 X 1000 pound short fin bombs instead of the 14, the rest of them could tote?

 

what total rubbish you spout shooter,

i, the B17 could only carry TWO 2000lbs bomb (assuming that it wasnt equiped with the bomb bay tanks as then it was only ONE)

2, the lancaster onl;y need the buldged bay for the 8000lbs and 12000lbs cookies the 2000lbs could and were fine in the no buldged bays

 

3, the B17 bay was no wider than a Lancaster (it was taller but it tappered and you could only mount 2000lbs at the bottom of the bay) in fact based on the space round the bombs I would say that the Lancaster bay was acryually wider (although this may be optical due to the B17 losing so much for the central walkway)

 

4, the Lancaster had no problem carrying 6x2000lbs (two rows of 3) so this makes your argument on bomb placement disproved

 

5, why would buldged bay door restrict the amount of 2000lbs carried? the lancs bombbay was of uniform depth, if 1 2000lbs could be carried in a non buldged bay then the full 6 could be - very faulty logic there shooter

 

you have NEVER provided evidence that the load you claim was possible (and still argue despite being shown numerious books that state otherwise)

 

You claim it might be done the rest of the universe claime it could and wasnt, as it is clear that it never happened it is up to you to show that your claim that it was even possible hold water

You need to get past your need for the B17 to be a better bomb carrier that it was and embrace the fact that its bomb bay was tiny

1, the B17 never carries more than 9200lbs on combat missions

Not relevant!

highly relevent 

2, the B17 never carried more than 4000lbs to long range targets

Not relevant!

highly relevent
 

3, the B17 could not carry bombs beigger than 2000lbs internally

Not true!

completely true and well documented 

4, the B17 could not carry more than 2x 2000lbs internally

Not true.

  completely true and well documented 

5, the Lancaster carried more bombs further than the B17 was capable of

Not true! Since the B-17 carried about 1/3rd more gas than the Lancaster, and was more efficient aerodynamically, it could fly about 40-50% farther than the Lancaster at any given weight and altitude.
needed to give up half its bomb bay for that extra fuel  and as the Lancaster carried far greator load to far more distant targets I say you are wrong again

6, the Lancaster carried larger bombs than could be carried by a B17

Your entire point of all of the sub points above is proof that they chose to do those things at the expense of doing other things! Those were "Strategic" choices made for Strategic reasons! If the Lancaster had been required to fly in broad day light at higher altitudes to avoid flack while carrying more armor and weapons, the weight of those items would have subtracted from the bomb load.

 

 

 Then they would have been forced to increase fuel storage which would have forced a smaller bomb load. The addition of more weapons would have caused more drag and further reduced the range and bomb load. And finally, if required to form up into large masses of planes flying in formation, their range would have been reduced even further.

 

There is no magic here from either plane, B-17, or Lancaster. The rules of aerodynamics are immutable. The B-17 was faster on less power and thus more aerodynamic than the Lancaster.

 

 It was a more refined design that was stronger,

 

 but Massed less as proven by their Empty Equipped and Maximum Take Off Weights and reputations for toughness on one hand and frailty on the other.