RAF Flying fortress

[Tavingon]

Who can tell me more about the RAF version of the bomber, it seems extremely light in armament compared to the American version!

[taildraggernut]

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles...F_Service.html

[Blackdog_kt]

This is an early model, distinguished from the different rudder shape mainly. The kind of tail we are familiar with (wide rudder with the fin extending over the top of the fuselage) was first introduced in the B-17E.

So this would make the one in your screenshot a B/C/D model. I don't remember if Boeing skipped a designation, or even exactly which type RAF had, but it definitely is an example prior to the E series.

These types were also lighter on the defensive armament, to answer your original question.

As for other information, i think that apart from using them in a few testing raids the Bomber Command was not satisfied even though the crews found them easy to operate. I think they passed them on to the Coastal Command and had them hunting for U-boats, just like the B-24s (again, initially these were mostly the early B-24D models without the powered nose turrets).

[Tavingon]

Did it really just have one defensive mg or is that just the image?

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by Tavingon

Did it really just have one defensive mg or is that just the image?

There was MG mounted also in the blister and by the radio (dorsal).

Hve a look here : http://www.463rd.org/B-17.htm

[Buster_Dee]

As said, the Lib I was a B17C. From O'Leary's Production Line to Front Line (paraphrased):

The bathtup belly position with single 50 cal, and the flat waist windows for the waist gunners, confirm this as a C/Lib I. At 1st, I think, there were five 30 cals (nose, belly tub, RO on spine, and two waists--the simlar D had twin guns in tub and RO space), but Boeing quickly upgraded to 50 cals in RO and belly tub. The nose remained a 30, and I don't know if the waists were also still 30s. Where the C's development was when the British took them on, I don't know. Probably safe to say the Lib I had five guns.

I'm guessing the British did not substitute 30s (or 303s) for the 50s, since it is said they were "suprised" that some of the guns froze at altitude. I think they were quite familiar with the 30s (and their own 303 variant) and would have know its quircks. I think they would have been less familiar with the 50's quirks/heating needs.