# The P-108/B-17/Lancaster Thread



## Hot Space (Feb 16, 2004)

Here you go Guy's, your very own Thread  

If you're talking about the above, could you keep it in this or the "B-17/Lancaster Thread as I'm now losing track of what the other Threads are about  

Thanks

Hot Space


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 16, 2004)

I say the the german HE177 looks much more better than those you mentioned.


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 16, 2004)

I would agree it was a nice looking Plane  

Hot Space


----------



## Crazy (Feb 16, 2004)

He-177 is a nice plane, but not so nice as the B-17. Way better than the P-108/Lancaster, though


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 16, 2004)

We are now gonna have a War   

Hot Space


----------



## Crazy (Feb 16, 2004)

I say, let them come. We will be ready to defend the Fortress


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 16, 2004)

You will never defeat the Evil Ones   







Hot Space


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 16, 2004)

?

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2004)

yeah the He-177 is pretty nice, but the P-108 looks fantastic to me 

see, HS obviously thinks so too, he put the P-108 first when he named the thread 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2004)

i wonder if there are any P-108's still in existence  if there are i doubt there are many of em, cos they're italian they've probably either rotted away or got shot down


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 17, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> yeah the He-177 is pretty nice, but the P-108 looks fantastic to me
> 
> see, HS obviously thinks so too, he put the P-108 first when he named the thread 8)



Of course 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 17, 2004)

you guys are all wrong, the lancaster was the best looking by far.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 18, 2004)

no lanc, i think the lancaster was the ugliest, the best maybe so, but you cant win em all


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 18, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 18, 2004)

8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2004)

ok, that so does not suit you................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2004)

lanc, you dont have to post your conversations with your sis on here


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 21, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 23, 2004)

dont use that look with me mr


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2004)

i prefer master if you don't mind


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 24, 2004)

master? but i am superior to you in every way 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2004)




----------



## kiwimac (Feb 25, 2004)

The He-177 was a good looking bird









> The He 177 served as a five/six-seat heavy bomber from 1942 to 1945. The Greif (Griffin) was the only long-range heavy bomber built by the Luftwaffe in World War II in significant numbers. It was, to the good fortune of the Allies, one of the most trouble-plagued and accident-prone aircraft in existence, and the German crews and ground staff did not like it either. The plane was desgined to meet a misguided and impossible goal of 1938 that not only demanded long range with heavy bomb load and a speed of 536km/h but also required the big bomber to be able to divebomb. This and many other difficulties caused great delays and added to the weight. The designers wanted to use neat remotely controlled guns but this was a big problem and eventually it had to be discarded in favor of the ordinary turrets or hand-aimed guns. Worse yet, it was decided to use four engines and pack them in two coupled pairs to reduce drag, so that the He 177 looked like a twin-engined aircraft. Although great efforts were made by Daimler-Benz to make the 2,950hp DB 610A twinned units work properly, they created numerous problems and caught fire so often that - like an aircraft of World War I - the big Heinkel was dubbed "the flaming coffin." In total more than 1,000 of many versions were built. Armed with various combinations of 20mm cannon, 13mm heavy machine guns and rifle-caliber guns, the He 177 carried up to 6,011kg of bombs or missiles, and in some types even went into action at "nought feet" as tank-busters carrying huge 50 or 75mm caliber cannons. Late in the war some new versions, like the He 274 built in France and He 277 in Austria, had four separate engines, but they were too late to have any significant influence in the course of the war.



Source: http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/luftwaffe/bomber/he177/he177.html

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 25, 2004)

yes i agree, the he-177 did look good 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2004)

well, i dunno, it's nothing specail....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2004)

your opinions are like mine, they dont count, i mean you think the ;ancaster looks good (sorry, had to say that)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 29, 2004)

8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 29, 2004)

not funny.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 1, 2004)

sorry, dont you like people doing impessions of you? 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 1, 2004)

that was cheap C.C., real cheap


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 2, 2004)

8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 2, 2004)

stop doing that................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2004)

8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 3, 2004)

you got that quote from my book!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Crazy (Mar 3, 2004)

your book says ' 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) ' in it?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2004)

no he means my signature 8) an aint your book lanc, it belongs to the people 8) thats why i love libraries, communism is still thriving in 'em 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 3, 2004)

lol (damnit u guys ur spam is starting to possess me) that communist library thing is soooooo true


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 4, 2004)

see, my theories work 8) its in schools too: "dont litter children, its your school" 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 4, 2004)

????


----------



## Crazy (Mar 4, 2004)

what he said??


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 4, 2004)

yes


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 5, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> "dont litter children, its your school" 8)



I don't know what it means, but it sounds funny  

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 6, 2004)

> "dont litter children, its your school"



if only...............................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 6, 2004)

yeah, damn capitalism, why did russia have to LOSE the cold war


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 7, 2004)

here's a lil worring fact, AT LEAST 5 russain planes enter british aerospace every week with out prior permission, however they're always intercepted and escorted away..............


----------



## Piaggio108 (Apr 2, 2004)

Let me say it again (I said it before in another post today), He 177 was awful. I was a total failure.
Piaggio 108 beats He 177, Lancaster, and B-17. He 177 is a failure, Lancaster is too boxlike, and B-17 has been overhyped. Besides, the italians had cooler Cammo on p-108s.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 3, 2004)

yes! thankyou! the p.108 was a great bomber! nice to see another fan mate 8) welcome 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2004)

the lancaster was far from "boxlike", it looked very good I'll have you know..............................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 3, 2004)

> it looked very good I'll have you know



yes, to drunk people and the elderly


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2004)

don't diss the oldies, they really knew how to make good music.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 4, 2004)

no they dont


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 6, 2004)

I guess if we're to decide if an aircraft is 'good', there has to be stuff besides how 'nice' it looks, and let's face-it, back then , Military aircraft were designed to do a job with what had been learned of aerodynamics by that point - I've been reading-up and the P.108 was a pretty advanced aircraft at the time. - The Lancaster had evolved from the Manchester, and that is a parallel to the He177, where the engines of the Manchester were the RR Vultures; trying to marry two Merlins together, not unlike the He177 with its DB engines. They went on to make it 4 engined etc., 
BUT, the crux of it all rests on their respective performances and what they achieved in the War - The B17 was a reliable, well-armed and crewed aircraft, their total tonnage of bombs dropped were roughly equal to the Allied night-flying counterpart, the Lancaster, and because they succeeded in flattening the enemy, the credit really goes to them and those that flew 'em. They were the thoroughbreds that won the War - There were others that helped too; - B24, B25, B26, Stirlings, Halifaxes and THE Mosquitos, but this threads heros were B17 and the Lancaster...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2004)

> I've been reading-up and the P.108 was a pretty advanced aircraft at the time.



exactly, shame the germans were too stupid to realise it was potentially successful


----------



## R Pope (Apr 6, 2004)

Gemhorse-- again, I agree completely. One minor point--The RR Vulture was based on the Kestrel engine, not the Merlin. Everyone tried to double up engines about the same time, and nobody had much success, a lot of time and energy wasted on a dead end.


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 8, 2004)

Yeah, sorry - you're quite right, Kestrels ! But wasn't it a fascinating aspect of the Technology then, trying-out something new. Wasn't the Napier Sabre similar, trying to get more 'pots' in an engine to increase power in one powerplant ?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2004)

> well-armed and crewed aircraft, their total tonnage of bombs dropped were roughly equal to the Allied night-flying counterpart, the Lancaster, and because they succeeded in flattening the enemy, the credit really goes to them and those that flew 'em



well after that you might as well have said the lanc didn't exist, you could give it some credit, it did more to win the war then the B-17......................


----------



## ahanswurst (Apr 10, 2004)

I have to say that I have seen a lancaster fly over The Duluth/Superior area one Sunday afternoon on its way to Thunder bay Ontario. I went out my door and heard a strange drone of recip engines going by my house. I looked to the West and saw a Lancaster flying about 2,000 feet going North. I tried to get my video camera but it was gone. I will never forget that engine noise. We have a B-25 delivering parts up to the Duluth International Airport about once a month and it is great to see that plane still flying.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 11, 2004)

well, when C.C. gets back, I've got quite a pleasant suprise for him related to that post...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

let me guess, BoB memoral flight at culdrose


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 19, 2004)

Well I'm very 'pro-Lancaster', alotta NZ'ers flew them, and as I've posted before, they became a legend because of developments to carry the Big Bombs etc., and Pathfinding and sheer bloody courage tenacity doing the Nightshift. - But I don't negate the B.17's contribution, they did drop half a million tons of ordinance too, but their experiences were instrumental to the B.29 development - The Merlin was an awesome engine and the Shackleton was the Griffon-version of a Lancaster:-My ONLY regret was the Lancaster's guns; .50 cals should've been installed earlier, and 4 in the back, not two, and AP/incendiary ammo used. - But none of 'em ALL, were immune to flak...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 20, 2004)

if they used the b-17 at night, do you reckon it'd have had more success?


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 20, 2004)

Could it carry more bombs than a Lancaster ? Not without making substantial changes in weight crew to become a 'nightbomber'. Like I said, I don't negate the work they did in daylight, and as said in past postings, that was courageous skillful work. - The RAF learned from 1940-42, that daylight wasn't the way, just like the Luftwaffe did.- The B.17 was a success in that it paved the way in daylight, but part of that success was helped by escorts like the Mustang. The Mosquito nightfighters were the only assistance the Lancasters Co. had...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 20, 2004)

yup, the mosquito was also effective as bomber too though 8)


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 20, 2004)

Further to that, the RAF had 20 B.17C's in 1941 to try-out and they were found wanting.- They ended up being relegated to secondary duties.The RAF without bias preferrred it's own aircraft as better bombing platforms, but did acquire a further 170 of latter variants and they did great work as weather reconnaisance and Coastal Command / Air Sea Rescue. They were easy to fly, reliable and capable of absorbing massive damage and getting home- on that alone it earned it's legendary reputation. -IMHO the Lancaster was a better bomber - I've read enough about both aircraft to convince myself of that ...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 20, 2004)

yes, the lancaster was a better bomber, but the b-17 was a better plane 8)


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 20, 2004)

Yeah, so was the B.25, and it was pretty well armed and fairly versatile.


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 20, 2004)

What do you mean by better plane???


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 20, 2004)

better all-round 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 20, 2004)

better all-round 8)


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 20, 2004)

Better all round like a ball ? Define better 'all round'....How could an aircraft that had a propensity to burst into flames because they didn't use self-sealing fuel tanks, for example, be possibly construed as a better 'all round' plane?- Getta grip !!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 20, 2004)

1) i think the lancaster was the better alround plane



> the mosquito was also effective as bomber too though



2) they didn't carry bombs on night bombing escorts..................


----------



## plan_D (Apr 21, 2004)

The Lancaster was better than the B-17, and I think I read a slight passage on the B-17 which was due to be given to the RAF when the RAF turned it down. 
The B-17s selling point was its high altitude until the RAF informed them that the German aircraft like the Me109 performed better at higher altitudes so it put the bombers at a disadvantage, and at a pointless height. 

I also read a thing on the B-17 gunships which didn't carry bombs just a lot more powerful armament but were too slow to keep up with the formation, so they gave up on the idea.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 21, 2004)

doesn't supprise me...............


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 22, 2004)

Another aspect of Lancaster legend was the Mk.II's, which were powered by Hercules engines. Some pilots loved them, they were faster but didn't quite have the bombing height of the Mk.I's III's, mainly used by Canadian Sqn.'s. They filled a gap in Merlin supply until the Merlin-Packard's became available. - Of all the British heavy bombers, the Lancaster was the easiest to fly, according to Ferry-pilots, who flew them all...


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 22, 2004)

Hey, just to queer the pitch.

Have you heard of the ME 264?



























According to the Luft' 46 site



> In 1937, the Messerschmitt development department started work on Projekt 1062 (which later became the Me 261), a long range aircraft used for record distance attempts and eventually reconnaissance duties.
> 
> Simultaneously, another long range aircraft was in the development stage, Projekt 1061, which was to be powered by four individual engines, and have a range of 20000 km (12428 miles). Due to more important projects in development at the time (mainly the Bf 109 and 110), Projekt 1061 was only sporadically worked on until late in 1940.
> 
> ...



Nice looking bird, but.

Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 22, 2004)

the nose looks like the B-29's.....................


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 22, 2004)

Does a little, eh. But they started on this in 1937. Just as well it didn't get made, it would have flown at the same height as the B29 and faster.

Kiwimac


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 22, 2004)

Oh and I liked this bit.



> Perhaps the most unusual powerplant idea was for a steam turbine that was to develop over 6000 horsepower and drive a 5.334 meter (17' 6") diameter airscrew. Fuel would have been in a mixture of powdered coal and petroleum. the main advantages to this engine would be constant power at all altitudes and simple maintenance.



Kiwimac


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 22, 2004)

Crikey, that's some aircraft !- Never heard of it before, although the steam power idea is vaguely familiar. It seems the German High Command did us quite a few favours - Poor old Willy Messerschmitt must've been tearing his hair out long before WWII was over...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 23, 2004)

> 6000 horsepower



bloody hell!!!!! i don't think i've ever heard of a plane with that much.............


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 23, 2004)

When I think about all the fine aircraft that the RLM screwed up on.

The FW 187 which was a twin-engined fighter significantly faster than the ME109

The HE 280, a jet fighter that could have been in production by 1941 and which was more manouverable than the FW 190

The HE 100, much better fighter than the ME109

HE 219, a fine night fighter which was bedevilled by RLM screwing around

ME 264 Heavy bomber

Junkers JU 89, a four engined heavy bomber built in 1936, capable of 245 mph then.

And others.

Its a wonder they got off the bloody starting mark!

Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2004)

they did have some pretty strange ideas..................


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 24, 2004)

In all ways, what you say there Kiwimac, I do totally agree with. -The German ingenuity and workmanship WAS really excellent, ahead of it's time; and to our favour, their Administrative interference stuffed up their best projects- As the War progressed their workforce craftsmanship deteriorated too, annulling what they did have...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2004)

whould the war have been more of a success for the germans if they had put more effort into producing planes like the 109, and notwasting time with their projects?


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 25, 2004)

For all of Hitler's preoccupation with bombers [as seen by the 262 project] he didn't allow any big-bomber development to mature. - Not directly his fault tho', the whole Command Structure was flawed-rotten by all the ego-power-trippers trying to please/promotion-prosper thru' the Chain of Command - All this contributed to obscuring the real purpose of Research Development - there was too much political interference in Technical Decision-Making, let alone Strategic Tactical, that they lost the enormous intituitive they had with these then-fantastic revolutionary designs. They had them on the drawing-board in plenty of time - Karma - the core of their reasons for War were 'spiritually' wrong, and that kind of rot was what led to their undoing ultimately - Depends on how far-back from it historically you want to stand, to view it...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 25, 2004)

do you think we would have won the war if we were flying german planes, and the germans were flying brittish planes?


----------



## plan_D (Apr 25, 2004)

No, Germans were beaten on numbers, even if they were flying brilliant planes (although theres were very, very good) they would have lost.


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 25, 2004)

Makes you wonder what would have happened if the R D dept had actually been LISTENED to, doesn't it?

Frankly I think that the Germans would have won WW2 by the simple expedient of taking the UK and then sitting pat, if they had continued bombing airfields and resisted the temptation that was the USSR.

Having said that there seems some evidence that the USSR was planning to hit the Germans so goodness alone only knows.

Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 25, 2004)

we shure as hell wouldn't have won it without the Russains.........


----------



## plan_D (Apr 26, 2004)

With the Technology being the same, we would have never lost, even without Russia. Russia destroyed their land army, but what good is a land army when you can't get it on enemy land? 

The BoB ended before Operation Barbarossa, and the British were out-producing the Germans in aircraft, plus we were blockading the North Sea and keeping the Atlantic open. 

The Russians were planning to attack, or at least defend their land in 1942. They were modernising their military to be ready for 1942, that's why I always say it was much better for Germany to attack in June 1941, like they did. Although it was the British that saved Russia, since they attacked the Germans in the Balkans making them divert forces from the Eastern Front and postpone the invasion of the USSR which lead to the attack going into winter. Had we not distracted them they would have attack in May and avoided the Russian Winter because they would have smashed more (I would say most but if you like at the stats they did destroy most, of a 28,800 tank arm the Soviets were left with 1506 in July '42) of the Red Army, and won. 

People always think I'm disrespectful of them when I say that, but I'm not. It didn't happen like that and the Soviet Union was a great ally and bled the Wehrmacht dry on the ground.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 26, 2004)

but some would argue that the blitz and the BoB were finished because the germans started to turn their attention to the eastern front............


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 26, 2004)

I think Hitler suffered from Attention-Deficent-Disorder, and that made a difference...


----------



## plan_D (Apr 27, 2004)

They should read the directives Hitler gave then Lanc. Hitler called off BoB in 1940 unofficially, 'postponing it until a later date' and it was then cancelled in 1942 officially. In between this time we had started the 1000 bomber raids, attacked in the Balkans and North Africa. 

He cancelled it a year before going to Russia. He'd been defeated by the RAF and he knew it. He was always going to attack Russia, but Hitler was stupid but not stupid enough not to realise leaving Britain there would be his downfall, well he had that idea in 1940...then he kind of forgot after we beat him and he was charging across Russia.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 27, 2004)

Something is wrong with this B-17..but I don't know what...HAHAHA


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 27, 2004)

there's always something wrong with B-17's, but the pic don't work..........


----------



## plan_D (Apr 27, 2004)

Damn it...  ...well it was just a B-17 falling out of the sky with one of its wings off....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 27, 2004)

ive posted that pic before, its in the picture album 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 27, 2004)

ironically both the pic's i've put in the album have been of shot down B-17s............


----------



## plan_D (Apr 27, 2004)

I have loads of pics of all different B-17s and even a few pics of the YB-40 (B-17 Gunship) also this pretty cool one of a B-17 in front of an original style B-52s wing, but I need to get a scanner


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

> ironically both the pic's i've put in the album have been of shot down B-17s............



back in your good ol' b-17 bashing days eh lanc 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2004)

i'm past all that now, unsted of making the B-17 look bad, i'm now just making the lancaster look really good...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

*cough* when it quite clearly wasnt *cough* 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2004)

yes it was, you said yourself it was a good bomber...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2004)

yeah but it doesnt have the defenses or the damage tolerance to make it a GREAT bomber 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2004)

but you yourself have admitied it was a better bomber than the B-17, which means the B-17 must have had poor defences and poor damage tollerance, is that what you're saying?


----------



## plan_D (Apr 29, 2004)

Whoever says the B-17 hasn't got high damage tolerance is a fool, and the B-17C and below were poorly defended, one of the reason the RAF saw them unsuitable. 
And it was the RAFs complaints, and ideas on the B-17 that made it what it was when it was the B-17E, which was then further improved.


----------



## Crazy (Apr 29, 2004)

Now we're gonna hear crap like "The only reason the B-17 was decent was because of us Brits"


----------



## plan_D (Apr 30, 2004)

No, but the reason the Americans improved it was because of the ideas given to them by the RAF which combat tested the B-17C. Are you scared it might have been made what it was by the British? Well you're safe although most of the time the British are involved. 
The Mustang and Corsair however...


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 30, 2004)

It really stemmed from the British Purchasing Commission led by Sir Henry Self, who went Stateside in 1938 with an aim to buy US built Military aircraft, which the Brits realised they were soon gonna need - starting with Hudsons, Harvards, P-40's...the Brits had quite abit of influence on American aircraft development as the War progressed...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2004)

whould you say we had any impact on the DC-3???????


----------



## Gemhorse (May 1, 2004)

I don't think we needed to, they were and still are fine aircraft, their Service Record is exemplary for what they were...I was involved in painting signwriting two white ones in 1992-3 for United Nations service in the Middle East , but most today are being used in the Warbird Circuit, where they've earned their Rightful Place...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2004)

there are still quite a few acting as civil airliners, but most havehad new engines installed, it saves money, i can see where they're coming from, but it's still a shame......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

yes...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

The British did have an impact on the American aircraft industry but that was primarily because they were involved in the war two years before America was. America was carefully studying the war in Europe and realized that things like self-sealing tanks and armor plating were very important. Of course, not everything the British touched turned to gold. The British order for the Lighting produced one of the most useless planes of the war, the RP-322.


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

Also the British combat tested a lot of American planes, the B-17C for one. And we also just outright improved them like the Mustang, which came from an order by us anyway.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

True. And if ya'll had thought to put Merlins in one of those Lightning I's you ordered, WOW! That would have been something! I mean, an Alison engined Lightning was one of the best planes of the war anyway.


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

Yes, another 'what if' for the thread with the same name.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

Just thought I would mention that the British didn't turn everything they touched to gold.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 14, 2004)

just most, with the brittish it was either a really really good plane, or a really bad one, we didn't make average planes...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

what about the lancaster (sorry cheap shot  it was one of the bad ones (sorry, even cheaper)) what about the wimpy


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

No, the British didn't turn everything into Gold, but mostly they did. They had experience, intelligence and, dare I say, guts to test these things. Especially the aircraft coming over from America being prepared for combat tests. 
The A-36 Apache, so I've heard, was combat tested by the RAF. Mostly we improved American planes, but that quite rightly doesn't take the credit away from the Americans, it just gives us more credit.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

The British, I think, were also motivated by a certain desparation. They were verly litterally fighting for their lives and that will motivate a people to try some unusual things.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

Yes, the British always know how to adapt.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 15, 2004)

but remember, if we'd fallen , you'd be alone with russia to face the germans and the japs...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

I think America would have been able to manage. It would have taken longer. Japan still wouldn't have had any chance of out-producing us. Germany would have been more trouble. Maybe America would have deployed its planes and troops to bases in Russia?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2004)

i think "the pond" might hae caused a few tiny problems though, don't you think....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2004)

not if you fly the other way around the world 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2004)

interesting plan, but that would mean flying over russia, a bit of a no no................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2004)

but they are your allies.... russians flying over america though would be a no-no if you see what i mean


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2004)

hey, the russians were a strange bunch, they were even a bit aprehensive about letting us launch the first raid against the tirpitz from there.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2004)

WERE a strange bunch? ARE a strange bunch


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2004)

good thing there's no russians on the site....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2004)

Nyet 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2004)

if you meant to say "not yet", what are you planning??


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2004)

no, i meant it as no, Nyet = no 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2004)

ah, i thought it was spelt with a n "i".......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2004)

so did i, but it isnt 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

Well, as I see it, America would have had three options if Britain was outta the war. 1) Work out a peace with Germany (doubtful but an option). 2) Attempt on very long range invasion (either Africa or England, and very difficult to pull off). 3) Transfer supplies (by ship) to Russia. Not an easy task, but probably the best option of the three.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

America would have probably gone for the peace option, carrying on a fight that wasn't theres would have cost many lives. 
The Russians weren't that bad, several RAF squadrons operated out of Russia, and B-17s used to land in Russia from time to time on their triangular bombing runs.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

I do not see America sueing for peace. Remember America and Great Britain have been extremely friendly towards one another since the late 1800s. I think America would have stayed in the fight. 

I also think the Brits would have gotten the royal family and Churchill out if their fall appeared imminent. America would have been the most logical place for them to go and they would have become powerful voices for an American presence in the war.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

Actually the plan was to get them to Canada, not America. I like the way America, and the Americans believe that Britain and America are friends, which they are with America being the selfish, ungrateful ones of the relationship. NATO only there when it suits America, eh?

Takes a while to get into WW1, WW2, plenty of technology 'stealing' and no help for Falklands. I think your government should read NATO.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 17, 2004)

yeah, you're always late for every war then when we win it, you take all the credit..............


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

They do annoy me, at times.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

Well, being about the only American that regularly posts here, I take offense to everyone of those comments. Of course, ya'll did the Poles alot of good in '39. Maybe you should have reread that pact. And maybe you should reconsider just who was feeding your country during 40 and 41. Harsh comments perhaps, but so were yours.


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2004)

I can admit that my country was stupid to not to help Poland in 1939. And even then, Britain had 300,000 people not nearly enough to beat Germany, and they weren't even supplied properly. We'd have had to convince France, Belgium and Denmark to go as well, you think they'd done it?
And it's not only that, you lot aren't grateful of Britain, AT ALL. Your government never says thanks, you never get taught anything about Britain, 90% of you think that America has done everything, and they always bail Britain out. 

MAybe you lot should read NATO, and maybe you should look into every war. Not just World War 2. And maybe you should see how much we're paying America, even now, for the goods sent across in 1940 and '41.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 18, 2004)

First of all, you can drop your first person pronoun crap. When you say that you are including myself and all of these accusations you are making about me are blantently false. I know that Britain has contributed to us greatly over the years. I know America has contributed greatly to Britain over the years. And right now, neither country has too many friends left in the world so we might want to be grateful for the friends we have.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 18, 2004)

do not make comments about other peoples countries which may cause offence pleae 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 19, 2004)

I said 90%, you're in that 10%. And it's not false anyway, I've met plenty of Americans who have no clue about Britain or what it has done, they all think they bail us out and that they gave us everything..too bad that's complete crap..too bad for America anyway.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 19, 2004)

I would agree with you. The average American is blissfully stupid about a lot of things. And I have admitted that Britain has contributed considerably to America over the years. Of course, America has contributed to Britain as well.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 19, 2004)

ok then we're sorry for saying you didn't know about our influence, but i'm glad you've admitted that most americans have no idea of our input..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 19, 2004)

i reckon the british and the americans are a good team, the americans power and the british brains make for a superb fighting force, if we fought independently in wars, we wouldnt be as effective 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 19, 2004)

America:A bit of quality and much quantity; respect for the manpower side
Britain:Lots more quality, not nearly as much quantity due to the economy; much respect for manpower side of the conflict
Russia:VERY RARE quality, nigh-unlimited quantity; NO RESPECT for the manpower
Germany:Quality is apparent in ALMOST everything, but the persistent spirit is sometimes a problem as in keeping things in use for too long, like the Stuka. Quantity is fairly ok, except for gas basically; respect for manpower, except at the end (Volkssturm:ALL men 16-60 REQUIRED to enlist, many WWI veterans)

This is my inference of WWII and the main powers. Please discuss.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

Russia had no respect for manpower at all (including their own). I really think they should have been brought up on war crimes charges. I have heard that they marched condemned men across mine fields in order to clear them.

I think a word should also be said about Japan. They had reasonable quality at the early part of the war. Their quality control dropped off dramatically towards the end of the war causing good designs to be less than effective. It would seem obvious to state that they had little respect for people but I don't think that was so much the case as it was an eagerness to die. A fine point perhaps but one that exists nonetheless.


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2004)

America has contributed a lot to modern Britain, still, I do not believe the American people (90% of, that's not you) know of, or are grateful (that's the same for the American government) of the British contribution. 
Thank you for realising this though. 

Now; America was all for economy, their strength came from their economy. Large production was their winning factor, the majority of their planes were average but the few winning designs (B-24, P-38, B-29) all proved to be excellent and some of the best in the war, without British intervention. Late war, they were starting to get the idea in technology, even on the ground. 
They were respectful of the lives of their troops, as much as you could be in war. Always willing to try new ideas, which is a brilliant stratergy (maybe Britain should take up that way of thinking)

Britain was always for technology, competing with Germany for years. Their economy was small in comparison to America, and made even smaller in the BoB. Their aircraft, and tanks (although few in number) were of mostly brilliant design. Some would argue they didn't care about their people (you should see, and read some of the missions people were sent on) but that attitude is still taken today, it is confidence in its own troops which makes them one of the best, if not the best force in the world. (No offence intended to the Americans but they always top the NATO ground force exercises) 
Always trying to cut costs, during war and peace. Which results in keeping many designs for decades. 

Russia; Russias doctrine was simplicity and numbers, which showed in their mass production runs and simple designs. It proved effective and with great loss of civil and military life by both them and their enemy. 16 hour working days for the factory workers, and suicidal missions for the army. 
Shot by their own people as well. They didn't care for their people. Throwing out designs left, right and center but always needed Stalins approval. Helped greatly by the Christies suspension system (New Jersey, well done America)

Germany; Germany believed in greatness and supremecy, and they showed it. Technology was top notch, and many of the worlds modern technologies came from Nazi Germany, or from the Germans themselves working after the war. Even down to the finest touch they were about precision, and technological brilliance. 
They cared about their people to an extent, and treat them well. A lot of internal rivarly prevented the German forces reaching their full pontential. Stopping projects that were quite clearly needed. 

Japan; Good technology at the beginning of the war, but they were fighting a loss. Probably soon realised this after Midway. Their brainwashed people were willing to die for the cause, and the Emperor was willing to let this happen. 
Out of the Jungle these the Japanese did not know how to fight, but served well in the seas, and air.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

an epic post and highly accrurate, well done 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

The bit on the Germans might need to be qualified. The Germans had respect for the lives of the people who agreed with Hitler. Even success in war (Rommel and possibly Molders as examples) could not save you if you crossed him. 

About the British, Plan_D, I assume you are referring to some of the commando raids? I have read about a few of those and, if there ever were suicide missions, those were them.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

yup, theres a series on channel 5 been on recently about daring raids of WW2, some most certainly daring raids on it....


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 20, 2004)

Here's my input: I prefer WWII America to now-a-days America and believe Britain or almost anywhere else in Europe would be the place for me.


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2004)

That's why I said to an extent Lightning Guy. You're very right though. 

I've been recorded a lot of those 'Daring Raids of World War 2' shows. The St.Nazaire raid was on there last week, I've taped that one. I was mostly thinking of the Commando raids, yes, but also the SAS and LRDG missions.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2004)

and the aimens (not sure if that's the right one) raid by the mossies, that was one hell of a feat to pull off................


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2004)

The Amiens Prison Raid (Operation Jericho) was a daring raid, and was featured in one of the shows. I also taped that one. It was a great feat, and achieved its main objective which was to allow enough partisans to escape to let the communication and spy network of the French Resistance be reestablished.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 25, 2004)

i doubt any other plane could have done it.......................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 25, 2004)

Didn't that raid end up killing several of the prisoners though?

I think that the Mosquito raid on the Gestapo headquarters in Holland was equally impressive.

And I think other planes could have pulled it off, the A-26 for example.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 26, 2004)

> Didn't that raid end up killing several of the prisoners though?



i wouldn't have thought it'd kill that many

and i personally don't think a A-26 could have done it.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

I don't have that book with be, but from what I've read there were fairly heavy losses among the prisoners. Why couldn't the A-26 have done it? It had comparable performance and was very effective as a low-altitude raider.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 26, 2004)

> Why couldn't the A-26 have done it?



it was too ugly ................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

I think the A-26 was sharp looking, and with all of those guns sticking outta the nose you knew it meant business.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 27, 2004)

yeah, i dont know how you can call the A-26 ugly and get away with it


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

Operation Jericho was to mainly free 10 members of the French resistance that were set for execution the day after. With that they were wanting to rescue another 280 members of the Free French, political prisoners and general people apathetic towards the Germans. Of the total 290 set to be rescued 128 fully escaped and re-established the spy network (the main aim of the Operation). 9 of the main 10 escaped. 
Most of the dead were shot by the Germans, or recaptured on their way out. The French in the prison always said though, 'we'd rather die under a RAF bomb than by a German bullet'. 

The operation was a complete success, with severe losses to the German guard, and serious moral booster for the French and British, while diminishing the Germans moral in and around the Amiens prison.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

I appreciate the info. I had just hear that several of the prisoners had died because of the attack and assumed that was from RAF bombs. I still prefer the raid the Mossie made of the Gestapo headquarters in Holland.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

i wouldn't have thought it'd be from the bombs, if i remeber correctly the bombs were aimed into the guard house??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 5, 2004)

Ah I remember the good ol' days of this thread...


----------

