Even though they did take a battering, They had machine guns and nice chunky
..50 cal's at that, all over the aircraft, even under neath, something the
lancasters didnt have, they only had, front, mud upper and tail guns with
303 peashooters (i dont mean to demean the RAF guys, all i'm doing is
comparing defences that's all so please do not take this to heart!!)
The U.S. bombers went out in day light and had close mutual support one a/c
from the other, where as the RAF went out singly at night and although part
of the main stream, each bomber was virtually on its own really.
It made sense to have less relying on hydraulics, because they could get
shot out, and to get home, the odds would be against them, add to this the
u/c down, and the flaps and stuff causing a hell of a lot of extra drag they
didnt need guzzling up the fuel they DID need to get home.
"Mark T. Evert" wrote in message
...

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
. As I vaguely remember it that
hydraulic
sytem in a B-17 worked off one engine.

That was the Lancaster, Art.

One of the virtues of the Fortress so far as battle damage went was that
it
relied so little on hydraulics for the flight controls.

Walt

Bomb Bay doors, landing gear and brakes were about all that was
hydralically
operated on most US WWII bombers.