# Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2005)

I agree you have to have a high regard of respect for the Bomber crews. They new what they were flying into.

As for the medium bomber I would go with the B-26 also.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 15, 2005)

ah, he said medium range, does the B-26 fall into that catagory??


----------



## Glider (Jun 15, 2005)

I would prefer the Dornier 217 over the B26

Its a lot faster with a larger bombload and about the same range. It was also manouverable enough to be used as a nightfighter and flexible enough to carry guided bombs which were used effectively in combat.

Another of my personal underrated bombers of WW2


----------



## delcyros (Jun 15, 2005)

I would go with this. The ability to field guided weapons is a quantum leap in this timeframe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 16, 2005)

Ill give you that the 217 was a good aircraft and very underated.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 17, 2005)

I agree. Even the humble Do-17 was a good plane in its early years, but by the BoB it was outdated.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2005)

The Flying Pencil.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 17, 2005)

that's the one, but for medium range what about the wellington?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2005)

Shes not bad either.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 17, 2005)

she'd cirtainly get you home.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2005)

So would the 217 and the B-26.


----------



## Glider (Jun 19, 2005)

The Wimpey would get you home but the Do217 would get more of you home as well as a lot quicker.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2005)

The Do-217 could have been a great bomber had she been used properlly and more extensivly and earlier.

All what ifs though.


----------



## Pisis (Jun 19, 2005)

The Welly was outdated as well... No. 311 Czechoslovak RAF Sqdn flew them, was very succesful but also had huge losses... slow, bad armour... In 1943 they were re-equipped with Liberators GR Mk.V.

Medium range... could Me 410 fall in there? 

And what about Me 262?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2005)

I will agree with you on the 410 but I can not agree with the 262.

The 262 had too many problems especially with its engines. It was best suited to intercept bombers. It also could not carry a big eneogh bomb load.

The 410 had great promise but it was too late and not built eneogh.


----------



## Beni (Jun 19, 2005)

And what about the HE111, my favourite german bomber...


----------



## Pisis (Jun 19, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> but I can not agree with the 262



It was a joke concerning Hitler's order to use Me 262 primarily as a bomber. I thought you knew it...

Well, He 111 was a bit "sitting duck" even it had very good armouring, it was totally outdated after the BoB...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 19, 2005)

yes the He-111 was not exeptionally good in the medium range bomber role........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 20, 2005)

Going back to the Me-410 you have a great point. A very capable plane in numourous role with a huge range of weaponry available to it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2005)

Exactly had she been developed earlier and put into use in large numbers I think she would have done well.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 20, 2005)

I would agree with the He-111, it had some promise, but I think that the whole German bomber development was mismanaged. All that push for dive bombers had to have taken its toll. 

I do not know a lot about the Do 217 can you all recomend some good places to start reading


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2005)

I think with the whole dive bomber thing, it goes with the German strategy before the war and in the beginning. The Stukas and other dive bombers fit in all to well with the Blitzkrieg tactics and with the early success they placed to much emphasis on the dive bombers. 

It was a big mistake for the Germans not to develop heavy bombers and a better bomber strategy.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 20, 2005)

but you have to wonder how much that would really help?? it'd severly limit their fighter production and i still don't think, owing to us having RADAR, they'd have won the BoB with heavy bombers.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2005)

If they had had a better bomber strategy or even stuck with the original strategy it may have.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 20, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think with the whole dive bomber thing, it goes with the German strategy before the war and in the beginning. The Stukas and other dive bombers fit in all to well with the Blitzkrieg tactics and with the early success they placed to much emphasis on the dive bombers.
> 
> It was a big mistake for the Germans not to develop heavy bombers and a better bomber strategy.



Don't forget The First Chief of the Luftwaffe General Staff, Walther Wever. General Wever was a proponent of strategic bombing but was killed before the war. Once he was gone the Luftwaffe leadership embraced medium bombers and dive bombers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2005)

Exactly but I think it all goes back to the Blitzkrieg strategy the most.


----------



## JamesBlonde (Jun 20, 2005)

Sorry to interrupt but I just had to share this song that Lancaster pilots used to sing about their Fortress counterparts.

We're flying Flying Fortresses at 30,000 feet,
We're flying Flying Fortresses at 30,000 feet,
We've bags of point five ammo and a teeny weeny bomb
And we drop the b*stard from so high we don't know where it's gone!

Glory, glory shall we drop it?
Glory, glory shall we drop it?
We've bags of point five ammo and a teeny weeny bomb
And we drop the b*stard from so high we don't know where it's gone!

I believe that in terms of the performance vital to good bombing that the Lancaster is far superiour to anything in it's class.

Ceiling, (Stirling escort)
Speed, Cruised faster than a Fort. I spoke to a gentleman who told me about the time he overhauled a Fort who tried to race him. The Fort jockey was comically smoking a cigar and cursing his machine as my friend's Lanc idled past on cruise setting.
Bombload, even the mossie could carry more bombs than a Fort. Nothing else except the B-29 compares.
Manouverability, the Lanc was actually quite agile for it's size
Range, no problems there.
Versatility, Dambusters anyone?

In terms of tactical support or medium bombers I think that the B-26, B-25 and Ju-88S are the best here.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jun 20, 2005)

I think the B17 is the best long range bomber.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

I agree in the fact that I like the B-17 the best but the Lancaster was a better bomber than the B-17 (yes Lanc I said it). However the B-29 was better then both.

The Lancaster could carry a larger bombload than the B-17. However the thing that makes me like the B-17 the best is the fact that it could take so much damn punishment and still get you home.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2005)

The Mosquito could not carry more than the B-17. The Mosquito could carry 6000 lbs on a short range mission, the B-17 carried typically 6000 lbs on a long range mission. The B-17 could carry up to 17,600 lbs on a short range mission. 

Across the same distances the B-17 would be able to carry more.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 21, 2005)

and if the B-17 was the best long range bomber i'll, say the lanc was shit!!

(sorry to by beloved lancaster, i didn't mean it!!)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

Were we talking about the Mossie up there or the Lancaster?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2005)

I was replying to this


> Bombload, even the mossie could carry more bombs than a Fort.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

Oh okay, I guess I got lost there!


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 22, 2005)

JamesBlonde said:


> We're flying Flying Fortresses at 30,000 feet,
> We're flying Flying Fortresses at 30,000 feet,
> We've bags of point five ammo and a teeny weeny bomb
> And we drop the b*stard from so high we don't know where it's gone!
> ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2005)

It is a catchy tune.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 24, 2005)

WEll the B-17 song was interesting, thanks for the post


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 25, 2005)

no one else has anything else to say so now everyone's just commenting on the song to gat a post


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 25, 2005)

The Caproni Ca.311 was a great light bomber.

Put your theory to pot hasnt it lanc


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2005)

Well it was a light reconnaissance bomber that could carry about 880lbs of bombs. The funny thing about this one is that the British ordered several hundred of them from Italy during the war.

Users Italy, Croatia 
Horsepower 2) 470 hp 
Range 1,181 miles 
Engine (2) 470 hp Piaggio P.VII C 35 radials 
Max Speed 217 mph at 13,125 ft. 
Max Ceiling 22,965 ft 
Bomb Load 882 lbs 
Armament Two 7.7mm machine guns in the wings, one flexible 7.7mm machine gun in dorsal turret guns 



> In the contract finalized during 1/40 for the delivery of some 400 Ca.310 series aircraft to Britain, the Air Ministry included 100 Ca.311 in place of the 200 Ca.210. These aircraft were to be delivered in disassembled form to an airfield near Marseilles, assembled and then flown to Britain. The Germans knew of the order and in 3/40 signaled their approval for the contract to go ahead despite the fact that Germany and Britain were at war. Six weeks later however, the Germans changed their minds and requested the Italian authorities to halt implementation of the order. Faced with this German embargo, Count Caproni (who was anti-German) arranged for the aircraft to be delivered to Britain via a front organization in Portugal, but less than four weeks later Italy entered the war on the German side and all further work ceased on the British order.
> http://www.comandosupremo.com/Ca311.html


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 25, 2005)

Wow interesting, I never knew that! 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2005)

Yes it is interesting that the British would want to order something like that. They had aircraft at the time that were just as good. Does that say something or what?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 25, 2005)

Maybe the Ca.311 was actually a pretty good aircraft. Ive never really bothered researching it properly to be honest, I think ill have to now.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2005)

I agree. It may have been a worthy aircraft. I dont think the British were going to buy crap aircraft from Italy. It would have been a waste of money and had they really wanted a crap aircraft they could have just built it at home.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 30, 2005)

I wounder if the Ca311 would have been used in Europe or the Middle East. They were sending some of the older aircraft there. Or maybe Canada for training


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2005)

At the time they were wanting to buy I think they would have kept it for themselves. This was before Italy officially joined the war.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 5, 2005)

That might make some sence. Then Italy really never was in a good positiopn to be in the war anyway.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

No they were not. The Italian military was always needing the Wehrmacht to save them all the time. The Italian navy was never used to its potential. They had a great navy and just let it get destroyed in the harbor.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 6, 2005)

They knew how to build good equipment, they just werent very good at using it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

Agreed to an extent.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 6, 2005)

The Italian Navy was alright in equipment terms, although they lacked any aircraft carriers worth mentioning. The Italian Air Force had a few decent _designs_ but had nothing good in numbers - and were not capable of mass production. The Italian army equipment was dump!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

Which is why I said agreed to an extent.


----------



## Rafe35 (Jul 6, 2005)

B-25 Mitchell is one of my favorite meduim bomber, but unsure what's my favorite for HEAVY and I was thinking B-17 Flying Fortress would be excellent pick, but again what about B-24 Liberator?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

I personally like the B-17 the best mostly because of its history and because it could take a lot of beating but the best bomber would have to the B-29. You can not forget the B-24 or the Lancaster though.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 7, 2005)

Yeah the B-29 is my favoutite bomber. (Except the P.108..)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2005)

The P.108 is growing on me.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 7, 2005)

Yeah its an interesting little plane.


----------



## trackend (Jul 7, 2005)

I agree Adler the best was the B29 but not the most effective I think its hard to pick a difference between the Lanc and B17 each had it merrits and work well together in Europe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2005)

I just like the fact that she was one of the "What ifs". She was not a bad bomber she just never got the chance.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2005)

trackend said:


> I agree Adler the best was the B29 but not the most effective I think its hard to pick a difference between the Lanc and B17 each had it merrits and work well together in Europe.



I believe you actually 100%.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 7, 2005)

Yeah me too.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2005)

Yeah!!!!!!

Actually I meant I agree with you 100%. But oh well.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 8, 2005)

the way i see it this is the top 5 rundown of the best heavy bombers of WWII

1) B-29
2) lancaster
3 + 4 ) B-24 or halifax, i'm not sure which way around they should go
5) B-17


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 8, 2005)

Id actually put B-17 above the B-24 and Halifax...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 8, 2005)

why??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2005)

Im with CC on this. It could take more punishment and had a less of chance of the wings falling off in flight than a B-24. B-24 great bomber but the B-17 was the workhorse.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 10, 2005)

YEah the B-24 wasnt really very tough the Davis wing (?) was kinda weak.


----------



## Glider (Jul 10, 2005)

The B24 was a little weaker, but it flew higher, further and faster reducing its time over the danger area. It also had a better defensive layout which would have helped.
I admit its close and the deciding factor would be in my view the loss rate of the B17 compared to the B24. There must be a site with this info, does anyone have any ideas?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2005)

Well here is what I have found. This is only for the 8th Airforce I am not sure of the validity of this but here we go:

B-17: 291,508 sorties, 640,306 bomb tonnage, 4688 losses, 6659 kills

B-24: 226,775 sorties, 452,508 bomb tonnage, 3626 losses, 2617 kills

The B-24 could carry more of a bomb load at a further distance and faster but was not as durable as the B-17.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 10, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> YEah the B-24 wasnt really very tough the Davis wing (?) was kinda weak.



The Davis Wing worked well with the -24 when the aircraft was producing maximum lift, level flight, cruise or better power settings, etc. Once you lost an engine and had to trim out through it's vertical axis, the aircraft flew heavy and was a handful. I understand that if either outboard engine went out, both pilot and co-pilot had to really "muscle" the aircraft as the ailerons got really heavy.

The latter end of the -24 design period was hurried by Consolidated staff, primarily by their President, Ruben Fleet, it took 9 months to develop the B-24. This resulted in a less aesthetically pleasing aircraft then first conceived. I think the aircraft Consolidated was really looking for came with the B-32 Dominator, the B-29s smaller counterpart.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 11, 2005)

well are we atleast decided that the top 5 heavy bombers in terms of ability and combat record were the B-29, B-17, B-24, lancaster and halifax?? and can we also decide that the B-29's first, the lancaster second?? once we've agreed on that we can argue about the order of the others.........


----------



## evangilder (Jul 11, 2005)

I would agree with that.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 11, 2005)

Ditto!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 11, 2005)

everyone else?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 11, 2005)

No 


Dont worry, im Joe King (I changed my name...  )

Yeah I agree


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 11, 2005)

Agreed


----------



## plan_D (Jul 11, 2005)

I've read that the B-24 dropped more tonnage on Europe than the B-17. That would make the B-24 the workhorse - would it not?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 11, 2005)

No the B-17 dropped more tonnage on Europe. Just look at the 8th Airforce figures I posted up there.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 11, 2005)

You're forgetting the 15th Air Force, Adler - which fielded more B-24s.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 11, 2005)

From my understanding the B-24 dropped more tonnage than the B-17 as a whole in WW2 but the B-17 dropped the most over Europe for the USAAF.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 11, 2005)

I've read the B-24 dropped more on Europe but I've never seen the figures. I believe someone needs to produce 15th Air Force figures. Were 9th Air Force fighters only?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 11, 2005)

Not sure. I may be wrong.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 11, 2005)

9th AF was A-20s, B-26s plus escorting fighters used for tactical bombing, not strategic bombing. They attacked marshalling yards, Atlantic Wall defenses, radar stations etc


----------



## plan_D (Jul 11, 2005)

I see - they were more about interdiction.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 11, 2005)

Yep


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 11, 2005)

The numbers I have for losses are

B-17 - 4,754
B-24 - 2,112

From the 8th Air Force Combat Losses site these should Only cover the aircraft that did not return. However these numbers dissagree with the AAF Stasticics which count all combat losses (Again according to the 8th page Non-returns only) of 5,548 both 17s and 24s. I have seen the B-17 number shown above several times.

Bottom line, Adlers numbers are as close as anybody's.

The 9th was Tacticle air Fighters and Medium bombers. The 8th was Heavy bombers and associated Fighter escort. I'm not aware of any crossovers ie. Medium bombers in the 8th or heavies in the 9th. They did have fighters from the 9th as escorts for the 8th though. Since the first Merlin P-51s were built as long range Tac. air and assigned to the 9th (354th FG), they were available to help the P-38s fairly early in the escort role.

the 9th lost no heaveys and 815 medium bombers. 

I don't know about the 15th but I'll look.

wmaxt


----------



## plan_D (Jul 12, 2005)

We want the tonnage dropped too. I've seen that the B-24 dropped more on Europe - by my understanding the 15th Air Force fielded more B-24s so it would probably mean the B-24 dropping more; making it the work horse. 

But this can't be stated until it's proved!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2005)

I the B-24 may have dropped more in the war as a whole but the B-17 did the most in Europe.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 12, 2005)

I'm not too sure about that, if you include 15th AF aswell


----------



## plan_D (Jul 12, 2005)

That's what I want to know now because the 15th Air Force was pounding Europe too and that had more B-24s.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2005)

Well maybe we can find some more info on it. When I get off from work I will try and see what I can find.


----------



## GT (Jul 19, 2005)

Here is some facts for you all!

Cheers
GT


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 19, 2005)

is it just me, or do those not work


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 19, 2005)

It must be just you, coz they work fine for me. Interesting.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 19, 2005)

well, you're weird 

and, i might as well put this here, a few days ago i spent well, not that long but long enough making a post about an airshow i'm gonna see, thing is, as i put it in the correct place, the warbird display forum, no one has replied yet, you could at least humour me bit  if you do go look, go straight to page 3, the one called culdrose airday.............


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 19, 2005)

Alright pot. Kettle here.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 19, 2005)

I actually looked - it looks like it's going to be quite a show but...I didn't think you were worthy of a reply.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2005)

No I could not get them to work either Lanc.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 19, 2005)

OK all the B-24 question is that they did a hell of a lot and that is just in Europe and Africa. Now they were the Heavy bomber in the Pacific and helped to gain the islands that the B-29s needed anlong with the Navy and Marines. 

Also the B-32 was a nice little or big thing, I wish it would have had more missions. As for the top 5 I will agree that the list is good we can ague points latter.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jul 19, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> is it just me, or do those not work



You can always go straight to the horse's mouth and find all kinds of stats for WW2, as well as some other wars, http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2005)

True to that also.


----------



## GT (Jul 19, 2005)

Have you guy´s installed the latest PDF (portable document format) file. 

Adobe Acrobat Reader is needed to read the document. 

You can download the free reader by clicking here. 

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

Cheers
GT


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2005)

Okay thanks.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 20, 2005)

oorrrrrrr, i could sit here thinking all powerfull thoughts first...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2005)

Here he goes, wind him up and watch him go!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 20, 2005)

just whatch where you stick the key yeah


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2005)

We know where you want the key!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 20, 2005)

By the harbour. Thats where the quay usually is isnt it?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2005)

LOL


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 20, 2005)

hehe, i'll admit that made me chuckle


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 22, 2005)

Why does that surprise me?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 22, 2005)

Girls always chuckle when the boys they fancy say something.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 22, 2005)

True that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 23, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 23, 2005)

8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 25, 2005)

Oh boy here we go again....Spam


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 25, 2005)

Ok, in a vile attempt to get this back on topic i typed "bomber" into ww2 and grabbed the fist picture that came up.








Of course


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 25, 2005)

It's an awesome pic though!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 25, 2005)

Yeah but it isnt a bomber


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 25, 2005)

It could carry a bomb, couldn't it?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 25, 2005)

Well yeah, but its not a true blue blooded bomber is it


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 25, 2005)

Picky, picky.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 25, 2005)

There was an airshow here in town the this weekend and an original Bf-109 with original engine flew in for it. I unfortunatly only saw it on the news as I was flying.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 25, 2005)

That would've been sweet to see! It would've been sweet to hear too!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 26, 2005)

sounds good!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 26, 2005)

When I was working at Mojave airport and they were flying "white 14" you could always tell when it was in the air. Spits, Mustangs, P-47s, a Bearcat, a Zero, and Corsairs have flown in from time to time, after a while you know the sounds of those engines. When the 109 flew over it had a low rumble unlike the Merlin or Allison.........


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2005)

...and that's when you knew you had to get at your battle stations and blast the f*cker out of the air.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 27, 2005)




----------



## Glider (Jul 27, 2005)

A number of years ago I was at Duxford mid week when they flew two original 109's. It wasn't a flying day, they just did it beacuse they could and wouldn't have the oppertunity again. One was Black6 and the other was one they had just finished working on. It was a special sound.
I have a picture somewhere if I can dig it out, but its an old one.


----------



## F4UCorsair (Jul 27, 2005)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2005)

I have never seen an original Me-109 fly that is why I am pissed that I missed out on this one.


----------



## Smokey (Jul 28, 2005)

You've probably seen these, but here are some 109 vids

http://www.bf109.com/video.html


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2005)

shall we get back on topic now??

ok so we're decided on 

1) B-29
2) Lancaster

i say the halibag should go 3rd..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 28, 2005)

I dont...B-17 or B-24....


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2005)

1)B-29 
2)Lancaster
3)B-24
4)B-17
5)Halifax


----------



## Smokey (Jul 28, 2005)

1) B29

2) B17, Lancaster

3) B24, Halifax


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 28, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> I dont...B-17 or B-24....



I thought you liked Twin tails? What up with that?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2005)

and smokey, why do you put the B-17 so high?? she was not on a par with the lanc............


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2005)

My list is reasonable based off A) Ability B) Combat record C) Impact. 

The B-29 wins hands down on ability, it's combat record wasn't massive but it had a huge impact. The Lancaster is second in ability, and a great combat record and impact on the war in Europe (but not in Pacific). The B-24 dropped more tonnage than any other bomber of the war, it was third in overall ability and a great impact on all theatres. B-17 was good, had impact in both ETO and PTO but was not MASSIVE and had an impressive combat record. The Halifax was a decent bomber, with decent combat record and not a massive impact.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2005)

that's fair enough, i'm baising mine more on ability...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 28, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > I dont...B-17 or B-24....
> ...



I dont like ugly faces  A bird may have the biggest control surfaces in the land but thats all gone to waste with an ugly face


----------



## Smokey (Jul 28, 2005)

The Lancaster seems to be more maneuvrable (corkscrew) and has a larger bombload, the B17 seems to have an extremely tough airframe and tough radial engines, and is better armed

So they seem about equal


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 28, 2005)

You got a point!


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 28, 2005)

B-17 has a much smaller bombload though, I always thought that the point of a bomber was to get bombs to a target so more bombs in a plane= a better plane


----------



## Smokey (Jul 28, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> to get bombs to a target



The B17s extreme toughness and good armament help alot here


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2005)

yes but what's the point in getting there, if you're gonna do barely any damage??

yes, the lanc couldn't take as much damage as a B-17, but she'd take you further, slightly faster and she'd cause more damage! and if you think all them defensive guns made her invincible, you're wrong


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes but what's the point in getting there, if you're gonna do barely any damage??



Send more of them!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2005)

there is no logic in sending numerous B-17s to do the same job as a single lancaster, when some of the B-17s will be lost anyway........


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 28, 2005)

The planes have to return after the raid to. I heard on 1 documentary so I take it with some skepticizum, that the worst loss of the Lanc was 103 planes one mission and the B-17 was 60 on 1 mission. 

One thing though at night the target could not be located so area bombing of infrastructure was the focus. During the day the targets could be identified and strategic targets could be hit. Bombing in general had other problems to:
1. Bomb drift, Todays bombs are only capable of 6mil accuracy or +/-6ft per thousand feet dropped. At 22,000ft thats 120ft in any direction. WWII bombs were much worse.
2. Variable drift from winds.
3. Bombsight/Bombadier accuracy.
4. Mass drops, All bombs in a group were dropped at the same time as the leader so any error in the lead drop was magnafied by the relative position of the bombers in a group.

Thr resources available would not support both RAF and AAF bombers flying either night or day missions together. 

My questions are 
a. which was more effective in destroying a specific target, Night mass bombings or Daylite Strategic bombing. 
b. Which aircraft/strategy was more productive towards ending the war.
c. What would have been the best way to utilize both aircraft in ending the war.

wmaxt


----------



## evangilder (Jul 28, 2005)

I think both were used effectively and with good reason. Having the RAF bomb at night and the AAF by day made the raids round the clock, thereby denying any respite to bombings. Daylight bombing with the technology of the day was better for specific accuracy, but it was far from perfect. For specific, pinpoint targets, the Mosquito was the plane for that time. HIgh altitude heavies, day or night, were more area bombings.


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 28, 2005)

Here is top 5:
1)B-29
2)Lancaster
3)B-24/B-17
4)Halifax
5)Mosquito


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 28, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I think both were used effectively and with good reason. Having the RAF bomb at night and the AAF by day made the raids round the clock, thereby denying any respite to bombings. Daylight bombing with the technology of the day was better for specific accuracy, but it was far from perfect. For specific, pinpoint targets, the Mosquito was the plane for that time. HIgh altitude heavies, day or night, were more area bombings.



In general thats how I feel though I don't think area bombing of civilian areas ever ammounted to a signifigant strategic advantage. Bombing civilians really made people suffer, and get madder but the effect was _far less benifical than the effort warrented_. I feel this is true weather it was Britain, Germany or Japan getting hit.

wmaxt


----------



## evangilder (Jul 28, 2005)

If you are bombing an area that contained factories, I could see where it might effect the morale of the factory workers getting their homes bombed.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jul 28, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> The planes have to return after the raid to. I heard on 1 documentary so I take it with some skepticizum, that the worst loss of the Lanc was 103 planes one mission and the B-17 was 60 on 1 mission.



Out of how many that set out?


----------



## evangilder (Jul 28, 2005)

The dates of those missions might have also been a factor. And were those Lanc losses in daylight or night-time raids? There are a lot of variables there.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 29, 2005)

I don't believe 103 were lost on one mission. I think the highest loss percentage on any mission was something like 17%. I'll go find the exact number later on. The Mosquito had the lowest overall loss percentage for any bomber. 

The fact is between B-17 and Lancaster, the Lancaster will take more, faster and with less crew. The B-17 is rugged but they'll still get shot up and the defensive armament doesn't save the bomber. That is also why I think the B-24 was better than the B-17.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 29, 2005)

and i thought this was solely for heavy bombers?? that's why i aint got the mossie in my list, besides, she's in a class of her own...........

and, before you all start to doubt the value of the bombing, read this:



www.rafbombercommand.co.uk said:


> Assessment of the Campaign
> 
> Bomber Command airmen flew operations on almost every day or night of the war. Their task demanded sustained and repeated acts of courage from individual aircrews in lonely and dangerous situations.
> 
> ...



i believe they make some very good points.............

and the greatest lancaster losses for a single raid were, i believe, 66 lost with 2 crashing on their return out of a total of 572 sorties (a loss rate of 11.5%) to Nuremberg on the night of 30/31 March 1944...........


----------



## Smokey (Jul 29, 2005)

Here are some relevant sites

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/dec43.html (loss figures)

http://www.historicwings.com/features98/lancaster/


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 29, 2005)

i wouldn't trust a great number of the "facts" on the historic wings site.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 31, 2005)

Well here is how I would go:

1. B-29
2. Lancaster
3. B-17 (solely off of historical value over the B-24)
4. B-24
5. Hallifax


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 31, 2005)

If youre going to make the decision of B-17 over B-24 due to historical value, then sure that would make more sense the put the Lancaster ahead of the B-29, since most people would know the Lancaster ove rhte B-29 and also it saw much longer service. Switch the B-17 and B-24 around in your list, and on terms of ability I think I will agree with it 100%.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 31, 2005)

evangilder said:


> If you are bombing an area that contained factories, I could see where it might effect the morale of the factory workers getting their homes bombed.



I Agree fully with that, also it does put AAA on a 24/7 basis, it dilutes the AAA by having more targets, and it does the same with other defensive forces. 

The other side of the coin is that many large cities are resource drains they require Police, Fire, administration and a slew of service jobs that all have to be supported by products like food cloth and raw materials not to mention fuel. Stratigic bombing will/did quickly drive factory jobs into diversified cottage factories in better protection/dispersion localities.

The bombings in London, Dresden, Tokio etc just created hate and determination not to give up. I'm just not sure the investment really was worth the payment extracted. Though it must be recognized that logisticaly we had to split our forces to Day/Night and the rest follows that reality to some extent. 

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 31, 2005)

No sorry CC. The B-29 deserves to be first because of the fact that is out right the best. When I say historical reasons I mean the fact that when you think of WW2 day light bombing of Europe what do you really think of the B-17 or the B-24? The B-17. Yes the B-24 was a better bomber but the B-17 could take more a beating and it is slightly more famous historically.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 1, 2005)

1: B29 - This was the "next" generation bomber of the WW2 era. To compare it to the B17/24/Lanc is like comparing those aircraft to a B10 bomber from the early 30's.
2: B17 - It didnt have the range or bomb load like the Lanc or B24, but it could get itself over the target in daylight. 
3: B24 - It wasnt as sturdy as the B17, but it could be mass produced, and had adaquat performance for daylight missions. 
4: B25 - In the Pacific, in the low level gunship role, it had a devestating impact on the Japanese airfields and maritime trade.
5: Lanc - No matter how many bombs it could carry, or for how far, it couldnt operate in daylight.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 1, 2005)

ok firstly this particular discussion is for heavy bombers, but it's ok as you proberly didn't realise............

secondly, yes the B-29 should be top, the rest of your list, and your reasons, are wrong. You say the B-17 could bomb by day?? yes she did bomb by day, but she also suffered heavy losses and was defenceless without escorts! all them defencive guns were pretty useless against a -190A with the ability to pick and choose where he's gonna attack from

and are you basing this entirely on their ability to bomb during the day?? the reason the lanc wasn't an ideal day bomber, was quite simply because she wasn't designed to be, would you expect a spitfire to go on long range bombing missions with a 4,000lb cookie into germany?? no, she wasn't designed to. She was, with the possible need for a ventral gun, idealy suited to night bombing and as it happens, from 1944, she did bomb during the day!! she made a total of 40,139 bombing missions by day, i know that's not as many as the B-17, but she DID bomb by day...........

and you've put the B-17 above the lanc on the baisis purely of their ability to bomb by day, have you considdered their actual overall ability?? have you considdered the lanc was faster, could carry significantly higher bomb loads and could carry those bomb loads considderably further than a B-17?? Did you considder that the lanc was compared in manouverability to much smaller twin engined fighters?? did you considder that the lanc was extremely versatile and could carry almost all weapons including the Dambusting mine and the heaviest conventional bomb ever used in combat?? did you considder the lanc was good enough to remain in RAF service until 1956 and even later in other air arms?? speaking of other air arms did you considder that the lanc was used by at least 8 other air arms all around the world?? Did you considder the lanc was converted into long range heavy transports, civilian airliners and future bombers and maritime patrol aircraft that would serve the RAF into the 80s? did you considder the lanc's use in the electronic warfare role??

think on it, and enjoy your stay............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 1, 2005)

Yeah lanc, you tell that noob whos boss!  


Nah, good points 8) I think seeing people top 5 mediums would be interensting.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 1, 2005)

This isn't confined to the ETO so the B-24 should be ranked higher than the B-17. In fact, I haven't had any proof that the B-17 dropped more tonnage than the B-24 on Europe. The B-17s from the 8th Air Force dropped more, yes, but not from the 15th Air Force. 

The Lancaster would have been able to operate in daylight with fighter escort, like the B-17 and B-24s received. In fact, they did late in the war. During 1943 the B-17s and B-24s received heavy blows on every mission, no effective escort was present and this showed as the USAAF was on the brink of abandoning daylight raids. 

I'm a little confused why the B-24 would rank below the B-17. The fact is the B-24 was a better bomber and it also dropped more tonnage than the B-17 in the war. And I also think it did in the ETO but that hasn't been solved yet. 

So, here's the list;

1: B-29 "Superfortress" - it was the best bomber of the war in ability and had a massive impact by dropping the atom bombs on Japan, ending the war in the pacific. 

2: Lancaster - it was the second best in ability, far beyond the loads of those below it. It had an everlasting impact on Germany and carried almost every weapon available to the RAF, while carrying equipment on the cutting edge of technology. 

3: B-24 - it was the most produced heavy bomber of the war. It dropped more tonnage than any other bomber of the war. It was a good bomber and superior in ability to all those below it. 

4: B-17 - it was sturdy, got many crews home and did the job in daylight. It was the symbol of the Mighty 8ths power, and for good reason. 

5: Halifax - it served Bomber Command well, it was an effective bomber and took the fight to Germany alongside the Lancaster.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2005)

I agree with your list "D" and you assessment on the B-24. I believe politics had a lot to do with the -24 not being as loved as the -17. Ruben Fleet the CEO of Consolidated had numerous run in with the war department during WW2. This coupled with a high training accident rate on the -24 sealed its reputation as "the box the B-17 came in."


----------



## evangilder (Aug 1, 2005)

The B-24 did have a pretty fragile nose wheel as well. I heard from an instructor pilot that it did very poorly on anything but well maintained runways.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2005)

It's funny you should say that Eric, the photo of my wife's grandfather's B-24 clearly shows a repair by the nose.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 1, 2005)

Yep, Joe. The Germans tried to land a captured Liberator on a rough grassy field. The nose wheel collapsed and damaged the aircraft. I showed the picture to Russ at the museum. He looked at it and said he wasn't surprised.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 1, 2005)

How did the Liberator operate in the PTO with such distinction if it couldn't handle anything less than a well maintained runway? The runways of the CBI and PTO were hardly up to the standard of the British airstrips. Often they were little more than a cut out in the jungle. 

Although the engineers in the CBI did excellent jobs with the few materials and tools they had at hand. I cannot remember the exact number but in India they built something around 150 airfields in little over 6 months. A remarkable achievement by anyone's standards.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 1, 2005)

I think alot of the runways they cut into the jungles and islands in the Pacific and CBI used the corrogated steel plates which were fairly smooth for operating the Liberator and the C-87 Liberator Cargo version.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2005)

plan_D said:


> How did the Liberator operate in the PTO with such distinction if it couldn't handle anything less than a well maintained runway?



Pilot training?!? I think the PTO guys just made do and pushed on.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 1, 2005)

It really didn't affect the performance of the B-24 though. I'm sure Consolidated would have attempted to solve the problem if it was a big matter. British and Italian runways were kept in good condition so, that avoided the problem. 

Those in India and China would have had to be good if they were to take the B-24, C-87 and C-109 I suppose. As I say, the engineers in the CBI and PTO were excellent.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2005)

Yep, agree


----------



## evangilder (Aug 1, 2005)

Absolutely. I am not taking away from the record of the B-24, just noting that the fragile nosewheel was fairly well-known to the crews that flew them.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2005)

I remember this photo - this guy landed in Alaskan Tundra - It looks like he did a good job!


----------



## evangilder (Aug 1, 2005)

Is the nose wheel intact? Looks like it left a pretty good gouge where the nose wheel would have been.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2005)

It didn't flip - I wonder what the NLG and wheel well looked like. If undamaged, I bet there was enough gunk in that nose wheel to grow a garden!


----------



## evangilder (Aug 1, 2005)

No doubt. I was just thinking it may have collapsed and just slid on the nose. But obviously I can't prove or disprove it. Either way, it was one hell of a pilot to bring it down there!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2005)

Yep - remember a Japanese pilot tried to do it and it didn't turn out so well!


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 1, 2005)

"ok firstly this particular discussion is for heavy bombers, but it's ok as you proberly didn't realise............ "

- The title of this thread is "Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3"...... nothing about best heavy bomber.

Enough with that. I admire your spirited defense of the Lanc, but it (the plane) still has short commings. It has woefull defensive gunnery for daylight missions, and for it to fly during the day would mean it needed complete and total air dominance to safely fly its mission. Nightime bombing was highly ineffective, except for leveling cities. 

The B17 and B24's could fly at night if required, and during the daylight, they could at least make the German pilots think about being shot down. The B17's and B24's did take some dreadfull loss's...... but they did get through.

I ranked the B17 higher than the B24 and Lanc because it had the ability to bring the aircrews home to fly another mission. 

A great bomber needs to be able to perform both in daylight and nighttime. Just the fact it could carry a heavy payload doesnt mean it could put all its bombs on target. And just because it could carry those huge bombs didnt make it superior. I doubt the 4000 pound bombs had much of an impact on the war effort.

My ratings for the B17/24/Lanc were weighted by how many bombs it could accuratly place on the target, how well it could defend itself and how hard it was to shoot down.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> "ok firstly this particular discussion is for heavy bombers, but it's ok as you proberly didn't realise............ "
> 
> - The title of this thread is "Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3"...... nothing about best heavy bomber.
> 
> ...



Good points - That's why the B-29 is the best bomber of WW2, end of story! 8)


----------



## plan_D (Aug 2, 2005)

_"of the Lanc, but it (the plane) still has short commings."_

All planes do. 

_"It has woefull defensive gunnery for daylight missions, and for it to fly during the day would mean it needed complete and total air dominance to safely fly its mission."_

No it wouldn't. It would have needed a roaming escort capable of escorting it to the target and back, just like the B-17s and B-24s had.

_"Nightime bombing was highly ineffective, except for leveling cities."_

No, just...no. The night bombing in the early years with little electronic aid was ineffective but by 1944-1945 the Bomber Command was effective in precision strikes and city bombing. In November 1944, Bomber Command dropped more tonnage on oil facilities than U.S 8th Air Force. 
On top of that, Bomber Command diverted thousands of AA guns and hundreds of thousands of men from other duties to defend the German citizens. 

So, no, night time bombing wasn't highly ineffective. It was extremely effective. 

_"The B17 and B24's could fly at night if required, and during the daylight, they could at least make the German pilots think about being shot down. The B17's and B24's did take some dreadfull loss's...... but they did get through."_

They got through with the P-51 with escort. The Lancaster never had the luxury of an escort fighter able to take it to target and back during the day. The USAAF was close to cancelling daylight bombing raids due to high losses, the B-17s and B-24s did get through but in extremely small numbers without escort. They were sitting ducks, all the guns in the world wouldn't save them. 

_"I ranked the B17 higher than the B24 and Lanc because it had the ability to bring the aircrews home to fly another mission."_

The B-17 was a rugged and durable machine but the Lancaster and B-24 weren't made of paper. They could take punishment too just like all heavy bombers. 

_"A great bomber needs to be able to perform both in daylight and nighttime. Just the fact it could carry a heavy payload doesnt mean it could put all its bombs on target. And just because it could carry those huge bombs didnt make it superior. I doubt the 4000 pound bombs had much of an impact on the war effort."_

The B-17 didn't operate during the night, it didn't carry the equipment required to operate at night. It had a woefully small payload of 6000 lbs on normal missions. It required 10 crewmen to deliver that 6000 lbs. It only could operate with heavy roaming escort. 

You consider 4000 lbs a huge bomb? The Mosquito could carry the 4000 lbs bomb and it would have had impact on the war effort, that's why they used. I believe the bomb you should be thinking of is the 22,000 lbs Grand Slam. Used for demolishing U-Boat bunkers and Atlantic Wall defences. All the bombing in the world from a B-17 wouldn't be able to get through those. So, yes, the huge bombs did have an effect on the war. 

_"My ratings for the B17/24/Lanc were weighted by how many bombs it could accuratly place on the target, how well it could defend itself and how hard it was to shoot down."_

With roaming P-51 escort in heavy numbers, they'd all be just as hard to shoot down. Especially in late 1944 and 1945, nothing could survive the R4/M and MK108 30 mm cannon of the Me-262. The Lancaster could carry more, was faster, had less crew, more manuverable, was in service longer, had more effect on the war...it was a better bomber.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Aug 2, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> "ok firstly this particular discussion is for heavy bombers, but it's ok as you proberly didn't realise............ "
> 
> - The title of this thread is "Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3"...... nothing about best heavy bomber.
> 
> ...



Tell me about the American precision bombing. It is hard to be precise when the American formation was from ~2400'(early) to ~1500'(late) across depending on the year. It is hard to be precise when all the bombers drop their bombs on the lead bomber's command through the clouds that were normally present in Europe.

early formation





In fact BC was more precise than American bombers most of the times from 1944 onwards

_In the fall of 1944, only seven per cent of all bombs dropped by the Eighth Air Force hit within 1,000ft of their aim point; even a fighter-bomber in a 40 degree dive releasing a bomb at 7,000 ft could have a circular error (CEP) of as much as 1,000 ft. It took 108 B-17 bombers, crewed by 1,080 airmen, dropping 648 bombs to guarantee a 96 per cent chance of getting just two hits inside a 400 by 500 ft area (a German power-generation plant.)_

from http://www.ww2guide.com/bombs.shtml which also includes a nice table.

The waist guns of the American heavies were just excess baggage.

_Testing done by the USAAF found that the bullet pattern from a B-17 during ground testing had the following results for 12 rounds to 600yds:

ball turret > dia. 15' - 8.3mils
upper turret > dia. 21' - 11.7mils
chin turret > dia. 23' - 12.6 mils
waist(closed) dia. 26' - 14.3mils
side nose > dia. 34' - 18.7mils
tail turret > dia 45' - 25mils

For the B-24 it was:

ball turret > dia. 15' - 8.3mils
upper turret > dia. 20' - 11.2mils
nose turret > dia. 23' - 12.9mils (Emerson)
nose turret > dia. 35' - 19.3mils (Motor Prod.)
waist(closed) dia. 23' - 12.9mils
waist(open) dia. 63' - 35.6mils
tail turret > dia 35' - 19.3mils_

"Gunner" ISBN 1-55046-332-2

To further what pD said, the USAAF was seriously considering switching to night bombing. Lucky that long range escorts became avaiable and that was to just inside the German border.

Just my HO but most of the heavies should have been replaced by the Mossie in the ETO/MTO. Only keeping enough heavies, ie the Lanc, for when *heavy* lift was required.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 2, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> "ok firstly this particular discussion is for heavy bombers, but it's ok as you proberly didn't realise............ "
> 
> - The title of this thread is "Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3"...... nothing about best heavy bomber.



if you'd had taken the time to read through some of the previous posts in this thread, you'd have found that currently we are disscussing the to 5 heavy bombers in WWII, so actually, allot was mentioned about the best heavy bomber, you just couldn't be bothered to read it........

and, allot of people have said this, but just wanna make it clear-

THE B-17 COULD NOT BOMB UN-ESCORTED DURING THE DAY!!

without escort any B-17 would be at the mercy of attacking fighters, all them defensive guns mean absolutely nothing! 



syscom3 said:


> but it (the plane) still has short commings



so does the B-17, so does every single plane, what is your point?? unless of course you're inviting a discussion about the B-17's shortfalls?? which i would be more than happy to have!



syscom3 said:


> and for it to fly during the day would mean it needed complete and total air dominance to safely fly its mission



no, it would not, it, as pD said, would need the same as the B-17 NEEDED, which was allot of escort.........



syscom3 said:


> Nightime bombing was highly ineffective, except for leveling cities



pD has already proved you wrong here, however if you wish to continue with this argument, we'll me more than happy to prove you wrong, again........



> The B17 and B24's could fly at night if required



this has made me curious, please explain.......



syscom3 said:


> The B17's and B24's did take some dreadfull loss's...... but they did get through



so did the lancaster at night...........



syscom3 said:


> I ranked the B17 higher than the B24 and Lanc because it had the ability to bring the aircrews home to fly another mission.



so now the lanc's a single use aircraft guaranteed not to return?? obviously it's not, well no plane with the possible exeption of the B-29 could take a beating like the B-17 could, i will give you that, however that does not mean that the lanc was, as pD put it, made of paper.........



> A great bomber needs to be able to perform both in daylight and nighttime



No, it does not. A great bomber will be able to take the heaviest payload possible as far as possible, it does not matter what time of the day it is, the reason the lanc bombed mostly at night was because that is what she was designed to do...........

now most of you are proberly wondering why i said "the lanc bombed mostly at night" just above there, well, as i stated before, and i again shall write this again to get the point across-

THE LANCASTER DID BOMB SUCESSFULLY DURING THE DAY

no, she didn't do it as much as the B-17, but her 40,000+ daylight bombing missions are not to be ignored..........

syscom3, you appear to be baising your entire argument on a small handfull of points, these being that the B-17 could take more damage than a lanc and, you claim, could deliver it's payload more accuratly than the lancaster, well, here are some of my reasons for stating the fact that the lancaster was a better bomber than the B-17, it is mostly what i've written before, however you seem to have taken none of it onboard so here we go again, and it's in list form this time!

- the lancaster bombed sucessfully by day and night

-the lancaster was faster than the B-17

-the lancaster could carry a significantly higher payload than the B-17

-the lancaster could carry this higher payload considderably further than the B-17

-the lancaster was more manouverable than the B-17

-the lancaster was more versatile than the B-17, as proved by the various roles and bombing missions she performed

-the lancaster remained in service longer than the B-17

-the lancaster was used in more air arms around the world than the B-17

-the lancaster was converted to a very sucessfull long range transport that was used not only as the main british transport in the Berlin airlift but became the personal transport of the prime minister and the King of a large empire, the B-17 however, was not.......

-an evolution of the lancaster wasd used sucessfully as a civilian transport

-the lancaster gave birth to bombers and maritime patrol aircraft that served into the 80's, the B-17 didn't........

-the lancaster bought into service some of the most advanced electronic warfare equiptment around at the time, the B-17 however, did not.......

remember these are just some of the arguments, and they are however proven facts that cannot be argued with.........

i eagerly await your responce........

oh, and FB, the idea of using thousands of mossies to replace the lancs has been discussed and the idea, whilst interesting, would not have worked.......


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 2, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> oh, and FB, the idea of using thousands of mossies to replace the lancs has been discussed and the idea, whilst interesting, would not have worked.......



KK said that!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 2, 2005)

so he did, thank you, for ignoring the rest of my post and going for the one mistake i made


----------



## plan_D (Aug 2, 2005)

Really though, there was nothing to be said about your post. If he can put up a good fight against three posts along the same chain of thought then; bring it on!

I would like to point out you made more than one mistake where spelling is concerned.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 2, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> so he did, thank you, for ignoring the rest of my post and going for the one mistake i made



No sweat Lanc - gotta keep things straight  

Good post though! =D>


----------



## evangilder (Aug 2, 2005)

Well said, Lanc, but I would like to point out that while the B-17 did not "give birth" to other later aircraft, a lot of the lessons learned and engineering for the B-29 came from development of the B-15 and B-17 bombers. So in the American Air Force, the B-17 was an influential design. Also, the B-17 did have a transport version that saw a little use. The reason that it was not used much is because the AAF already had a substantial cargo aircraft fleet and didn't need to convert the B-17.

That being said, I still believe that the Lancaster was indeed a better bomber than the B-17.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Aug 2, 2005)

> -the lancaster was converted to a very sucessfull long range transport that was used not only as the main british transport in the Berlin airlift but became the personal transport of the prime minister and the King of a large empire, the B-17 however, was not.......



B-24 was.......

That was because the Brits did not have any large transport a/c so they had to convert them from old bombers. Winston Churchill used a B-24 as his own transport aircraft. Among the first Liberators to go into British service were six used as transatlantic airliners with BOAC

The US President had much better a/c than some old converted bomber to fly him around.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 2, 2005)

The B-24 was converted to the C-87 "Liberator Express" and also, B-24Js and Ls were converted to C-109 tankers.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 2, 2005)

Yes they were. Some of the C-87s were used in the CBI to fly "the hump".


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 2, 2005)

yes i'm aware of the B-24's use as a transporter, sorry i was just comparing the lanc to the B-17 that time.............

and the Avro York, the transporter evolution of the lancaster in question, was not just any old converted bomber KK, she just had lanc wings, tail and undercarriage, the lanc fusile was replaced with a spacious and sometime luxurious transport fit for a king!! and yes, it was used by a king!


----------



## KraziKanuK (Aug 2, 2005)

All they did was give it a new fuselage so it is still a converted old bomber.  

Rather homely and dumpy looking as well.  Reminds me of that dud the Botha.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 2, 2005)

I like the lancastrian better! 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 2, 2005)

yes she is the civilian airliner i'm on about lol..........

and yes i never said the york wasn't a converted bomber......


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 3, 2005)

The B17's and -24's did have distinct advantages over the Lanc.

For one, the -17 and -24 both had ten .50 cal machine guns, compared to the paltry eight .303's the Lanc had. Like I said before, in the daylight, at least the -17 and -24 had a chance to defend themselves. The Lanc would have been a proverbial sitting duck. Much like the Japanese Betty bomber.

Second, although the B17 flew slower than the B24 and Lanc, at least it could fly far higher. Being up there 6 miles up did mimize the intercept times the luftwaffe had, plus, only the heavy flak could fire that high. 

Third, the B17's and B24's had the pilot/copilot design. An extremely important consideration when you think of it. How many Lancs didnt complete a mission or return to home because the only one who could fly the plane was incapacitated? Moreover, that long range of the Lanc wouldnt help much as the pilot would be fatigued from all those hours he had to stay alert and fly. 

Fourth, I'd rather have radial air cooled engines in a bomber far more than a liquid cooled engine. Air cooled engines dont leak glycol when theyre damaged.

Fifth, daylight bombing is inherintley more accurate than nightime bombing. No way the avionics of that era could give you the same accuracy as actually seeing your target below you. The Lanc needed that heavy bombload cause it needed to drop them all in hope of hitting its target. Bottom line, better to have a smaller payload and actually hit your target than a heavy payload and miss.

I still say that the best bomber of WW2 was the B29, followed by the B17, and then possibly a tie between the B24 and the Lanc


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 3, 2005)

are you not going to answer to any of our points at all then or just blantantly ignore them again, forcing me to post them all again??

yes, 10+ .50cals did help the defence of the B-17, however it did not stop them getting shot down in very large numbers and it reduced their payload- allot. Is having so many payload reducing alomost pointless defensive guns really justified??

yes, the B-17 did fly higher than the lanc, this also required a huge form up time over england to get to hight, and still didn't stop them getting intercepted at all, also, how many problems did the B-17 have with flying at altitude?? how many crew men suffered and could not do their job at that hight?? how many times did guns stop working at that hight?? i'm not saying that altitude's a bad thing, i'm just trying to get you to see that it's not everything...........

yes, the B-17 did have a co-pilot, it had allot of other crew too, so whenever a lanc was shot down, we lost 7 men, when a B-17 was shot down, you often lost 10+ no co-pilot can save a plane that's been blown to bits, and lanc pilots often taught their flight engineers how to fly the plane, there are even stories of flight engineers flying their damaged planes all the way back to England............

and yes radials are more damage resistant than inlines, in the B-17's case, they're also less powerfull.........

yes, daylight bombing is inherintley more accurate than night bombing, that DOES NOT mean however that the B-17 was always accurate, and also may i remind you of two points- firstly that when city bombing accuracy is not always nessisairy, and secondly, 617 Sqn, a squadron of lancasters, became the most accurate heavy bomber squadron of the war..........

and i agree with you saying the B-29 was the best bomber of the war, everyone will agree with that, however that is where the similarities in our lists stop.

so, as i see it you have managed to make 5 somewhat weak points in support of the B-17, i've decided that i'll post some of the arguments in favour of the lancaster, because you obviously loved them so much you ignored them

- the lancaster bombed sucessfully by day and night (which you seem to think is the mark of a great bomber)

-the lancaster was faster than the B-17 

-the lancaster could carry a significantly higher payload than the B-17 

-the lancaster could carry this higher payload considderably further than the B-17 

-the lancaster was more manouverable than the B-17 

-the lancaster was more versatile than the B-17, as proved by the various roles and bombing missions she performed 

-the lancaster remained in service longer than the B-17 

-the lancaster was used in more air arms around the world than the B-17 

-the lancaster was converted to a very sucessfull long range transport that was used not only as the main british transport in the Berlin airlift but became the personal transport of the prime minister and the King of a large empire, the B-17 however, was not....... 

-an evolution of the lancaster wasd used sucessfully as a civilian transport 

-the lancaster gave birth to bombers and maritime patrol aircraft that served into the 80's, the B-17 didn't........ 

-the lancaster bought into service some of the most advanced electronic warfare equiptment around at the time, the B-17 however, did not....... 

i wish to point out i'm only comparing the lanc to the B-17 at this moment in time..............

and syscom3, i've only posted some of the arguments there, there's more if you want them, i also wish to say to you that when arguing, it is considdered good practice to reply to ar atleast acknowledge someone else's argument before commencing your own, you do not simply make your own argument like that, it's not an argument if you do..............


----------



## KraziKanuK (Aug 3, 2005)

_A number of Fortresses were converted to transports in the postwar period and designated "CB-17". Some of these were fitted luxuriously and used as VIP transports, under the designation "VB-17"._

_B-17s were also popular in purely civilian roles after the war. TWA operated one as an executive transport in the immediate postwar years._


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 3, 2005)

do you have any more information on these planes?


----------



## evangilder (Aug 3, 2005)

The CB-17 was also called the C-108. Info about that one can be found here:

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b17_15.html

I don't know how many were converted.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 3, 2005)

According to aerofiles, there was 1 CB-17, 1 VB-17 and 4 C-108s. So it does not appear that the numbers were significant.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 3, 2005)

thanks for the extra info, i didn't know about them but you're right the numbers aren't exactly mind blowing.........


----------



## plan_D (Aug 3, 2005)

That websites states it as "several" CB-17s. It does mention a lot about the XC-108 being unsuccessful. Which points to me as the B-17 being a less successful bomber than the B-24 from an aircraft point of view. The C-87 and C-109 while unliked by their crews were able to make the trip over the "Hump". The XC-108A couldn't do it due to constant engine problems.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 3, 2005)

Yes the numbers don't seem to have any consistency, but they were not big by any stretch. Like I said, there was a fairly large contingent of cargo aircraft already in the US arsenal, so there was less of a need to convert bombers.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 3, 2005)

but those that were converted only serve to prove they wouldn't have been sucessfull even if they had been converted in larger numbers......


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 3, 2005)

The B-17 was also used into the 80s as a fire bomber. 

For an airplane a generation earlier than the Lanc it was a very sucessful aircraft. It was more sucessful as a daylite bomber than the Lanc though it did require escort and had a limited payload partly due to all the armament required for daylite raids. 
With training and minimum weponry it's bomb loads would have been into the 12K range to Berlin in night time missions, isn't that about what the Lanc carried on similar missions? 
Another thing a lot of those special missions could have been carried out with the B-17 had it been desired. 
Many of your points are only applicable in a biased view point based on the usage that was used while not considering what the actual capabilities could have produced, if so DESIRED. Some, like the Tall Boy and Grand Slam were beyond the B-17s capabilities but on it's own are they enough to clearly make the Lanc or the B-17 better, I don't know.

Comparing the B-17 and the Lanc 1:1 without adjusting for mission requirements is ridiculas, like comparing Apples to Onions.

Was it better than the Lanc, except for the daylite role, it doesn't stand out but it did what it had to do and did it well - so did the Lanc.

wmaxt


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 3, 2005)

that is true, and a very diplomatic answer 

and also the fact that it was a generation earlier (i wouldn't call it a generation earlier, just earlier), meant that it had years of development, the lanc was an immediate sucess in in it's first varient and needed no real modification after entering service, the B-17 had years of development and still wasn't at it's best by the time the lanc was in service..........


----------



## plan_D (Aug 3, 2005)

The B-17 was only more successful during the day soley due to the escort fighters it received. When the RAF used the B-17 early on, it was a complete failure due to lack of escort cover. 

As far as I know there's only three marks of Lancaster (not including the specials) Mk.I, II and III. III was a I with Packard-Merlins and II was because the MOD believed they might run out of Merlins.

:edit: Sorry, naturally I forgot the Canadian built Mk.X. Feel free to point out the other marks that I've most likely missed.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 3, 2005)

well there were other marks, many other marks in fact however most of these are exactily the same as the Mk.III or are slightly adapted versions of the Mk.III, there was however the service seeing Mk.VII, if i bring that into the equation we're looking at a lanc capable of 348mph..........


----------



## plan_D (Aug 3, 2005)

Well, that is why I stated not including the specials. These were all the ones changed to carry the Grand Slam, or test equipment, or RADAR or...anything and everything basically.


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 3, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> that is true, and a very diplomatic answer
> 
> and also the fact that it was a generation earlier (i wouldn't call it a generation earlier, just earlier), meant that it had years of development, the lanc was an immediate sucess in in it's first varient and needed no real modification after entering service, the B-17 had years of development and still wasn't at it's best by the time the lanc was in service..........



But airframe limitations are set during the first design. 
And again if the Lanc had been used in daylight it would have had armor and crew added, payload limited and required an escort, not to mention be a dead ringer for the B-17s capabilities as operated.
All I ask is that the airframe capabilities be compared in an equivelent manner. The two planes over all capabilities are awful close. 
They were equiped to do different jobs (that complimented each other) and comparing them so equiped is a very biased view, in my opinion.

The Lanc also had the advantage of wartime experiance in its original design. If hadn't been better in at least some areas somebody should have been shot!

wmaxt


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 3, 2005)

well the way i see it let's just look at stats and achievements and not focus on their role so much perhaps??


----------



## plan_D (Aug 3, 2005)

No, extra crewmen and extra armour would not be needed. The Lancaster couldn't operate during the day because when it first came into service there were no capable escort fighters to take it to target and back. When the Mustang did arrive the RAF and USAAF had agreed; RAF by night, USAAF by day.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 3, 2005)

oh yeah, i can list all the lanc marks if you wish??


----------



## plan_D (Aug 3, 2005)

Sure!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 3, 2005)

ok tomorrow morning i gotta go now.........


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 3, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well the way i see it let's just look at stats and achievements and not focus on their role so much perhaps??



Well that's a start but we need to keep in mind the basic capabilities are so close except for the optamization required for their respective roles.

wmaxt


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 4, 2005)

i fail to see how their baisic abilities are similar when the lanc is technically superior in almost every respect??

and here are all the lancaster marks, although most of them were just the canadians being picky, and i've tried to include numbers made where possible as a guide.........

Mk.I (3,444)
Mk. or B.I (special) (converted for heavy bomb operations)
Mk. or B.I (FE) (tropicalised for use against the tiger force)
PR.I (converted for the photo. recon. role)
Mk.I (Western Union) (54 lancasters were to be supplied to the French Navy's Aeronavale, 32 of these were Mk.Is without dorsal turrets, the rest we will meet later)
Mk.II (300)
Mk.III (3,020)
ASR.III (converted to carry a airborn lifeboat IIA for the air-sea rescue role)
MR.III/GR.III (converted for the martitme reconnaissance role)
Mks.IV V (later became lincolns I II)
Mk.VI (8; converted from Mk.IIIs with merlin 85 engines, capable of 348mph)
Mk.VII (Interim) (this designation was not officially reconised but was widely accepted for 50 lancaster Mk.Is intended to be fitted with the Martin mid-upper turret, however late delivery meant they were eventually fitted with the standard Fraser-Nash turret)
Mk.VII/Mk.VII (FE) (180; Built by austin and essentially a Mk.I with the Martin mid-uppser turret) 
Mk.VII (Western Union) (yes we met 32 of the 54 lancs to be supplied to france earlier, the remaining 22 were Mk.VII (Western Union) and were not fitted with the mid upper turret, however these were later renamed Mk.I (Modified) )
Mk.X (430)
Lancaster XPP (lancs converted for service with Trans Canada Airlines)

The following are all canadian post war conversions of Mk.Xs. The "Mk." was scrapped and arabic numerals were used.

Lancaster 10-AR (Artic Recon. with longer nose and additional RADAR and camera equiptment)
Lancaster 10-BR (Bomber Recon. version)
Lancaster 10-DC (2; Converted to carry two Ryan Firebee Drones)
Lancaster 10-MR/MP (Maritme Recon/Maritime Patrol)
Lancaster 10-N (3; flying navigation training classrooms)
Lancaster 10-O (1; test bed for Avro Orenda engines mounted in outer nacelles)
Lancaster 10-P (9; converted for photographic mapping and Recon.)
Lancaster 10-S ("Standard" designation given to lancs intended for museum or display services, and to supply spares for active aircraft)
Lancaster 10-SR (8; converted for Air-Sea rescue duties)
Lancaster 10-U (Held in stock unmodified, lancs could be drawn from this stock and modified as nessisairy)

and so concludes your crash course in all marks of the lancaster, below are some pictures of some of the different marks of some of the aircraft listed above...............


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 4, 2005)

I like that last pic. I didn't have that one.
And by "picky", I know you meant "thorough".


----------



## KraziKanuK (Aug 4, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> I like that last pic. I didn't have that one.
> And by "picky", I know you meant "thorough".



We can hope so.  

Now that Mk X of 419, with the shark mouths, is one nice looking Lanc.  

Lanc, 

Do you have the Lanc manual put out by the RAF Museum? Other books in the series include one for the Mossie, Spit and Hurrie. I also believe there is one for the Hallie.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 4, 2005)

Nice Shots Lanc - Like the one with the Firebees - I worked for Ryan as a contractor for about a year - that was one of my programs....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 4, 2005)

you didn't actually work with the lancs did you?? what else can you tell me about the drones??

and thanks KK for saying that lanc looked good i think she looks great but so far i think you're the only one who agrees!

and yeah i've got that lanc munual, although i thought the only other ones were for the spit and hurri?? i didn't know there was a mossie and halibag one too??


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 4, 2005)

Hey wait. I like the looks of the Lanc too ya know. I don't think she was the _best_ looking plane ever to fly, but I don't think she was exactly ugly.
Of course the maple leaf spruces it up even more. 

Oh, and the shark mouths look goofy.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 4, 2005)

we were just talking about that lanc with the sharks mouths.....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 4, 2005)

Previous comment edited to make lanc look foolish.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 4, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> you didn't actually work with the lancs did you?? what else can you tell me about the drones??



No - didn't do the Lancs - I'M NOT THAT OLD!  

WHen I worked for Teledyne Ryan, I dealt with the suppliers that made the sub-assemblies. Even though there were thousands of these built and they were reusable, there was a limit on their airframes, usually 10 flights. At that point the operator took a "skin shot" and actually destroyed the target.

Both Firebee and Super Firebee are conventionally constructed, Ryan started using honeycomb and composites in some of the wing and fuselage components. When they are launched a drone operator (who is flying in the mother aircraft) is controlling them....

Ironically I got offered another job and went to work for a company that operated and maintained the DC-130s used to launch the Fire Bees. We didn't handle them (another contractor did that) but the drone operator and aircrew worked for us.

On numerous occasions I got to go on missions with these guys, I did get a chance to go on a drone launch. When they launched them they drop from the pylon and immediately light up and WHOOSH! they're gone! The day I saw this, I watched them launch and they shot away from us. About 5 seconds later I caught something from the corner of my eye - like a both of lightning 2 F-14s shot by us probably at 600+ knots chasing the drones! All this happened in the matter of seconds, so fast I didn't have time to grab a camera!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 4, 2005)

sounds good and thanks for the info......

very mature skimmey.........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 4, 2005)

Tee-hee.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 4, 2005)

i wonder if sycom3's ever coming back??


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 4, 2005)

yes, 10+ .50cals did help the defence of the B-17, however it did not stop them getting shot down in very large numbers and it reduced their payload- allot. Is having so many payload reducing alomost pointless defensive guns really justified??
-_ Better to go into a fight with 10 heavy MG's than a paltry 8 light MG's. Plus the added weight was insignificant._

yes, the B-17 did fly higher than the lanc, this also required a huge form up time over england to get to hight, and still didn't stop them getting intercepted at all, also, how many problems did the B-17 have with flying at altitude?? how many crew men suffered and could not do their job at that hight?? how many times did guns stop working at that hight?? i'm not saying that altitude's a bad thing, i'm just trying to get you to see that it's not everything...........
- _Forming up didnt take that much time. Plus the men were trained to work at high altitude, and the plane was designed to work at those altitudes. No Problem. Always better to be at high altitude where its tougher to be intercepted and where only heavy flak can be used_.

yes, the B-17 did have a co-pilot, it had allot of other crew too, so whenever a lanc was shot down, we lost 7 men, when a B-17 was shot down, you often lost 10+ no co-pilot can save a plane that's been blown to bits, and lanc pilots often taught their flight engineers how to fly the plane, there are even stories of flight engineers flying their damaged planes all the way back to England............
- _A flight engineer is not a pilot. Always better to have two guys in the cockpit. Not every plane is blown to bits in the air (maybe Lancs were?). In the brutal logic of fighting an air war, gunners and flight engineers were a dime a dozen. The "skill" positions took many months to be proficient. If the Lanc lost its pilot..... all were lost. If the B17 or -24 lost its pilot, there were always another there to fly the mission._

and yes radials are more damage resistant than inlines, in the B-17's case, they're also less powerfull.........
- _The Merlin was more powerfull, the radials used on the -17 and -24 were more reliable. Plus the radials had better high altitude performance than the merlins. Its a trade off..... slightly more power vs. better reliability._

yes, daylight bombing is inherintley more accurate than night bombing, that DOES NOT mean however that the B-17 was always accurate, and also may i remind you of two points- firstly that when city bombing accuracy is not always nessisairy, and secondly, 617 Sqn, a squadron of lancasters, became the most accurate heavy bomber squadron of the war..........
- _B17's and B24's had their missions where they were accurate, and missions were they missed. Just Like the RAF. Statistically, a daylight bombing mission was more accurate for the small and middle sized targets than a nightime mission._

and i agree with you saying the B-29 was the best bomber of the war, everyone will agree with that, however that is where the similarities in our lists stop.

so, as i see it you have managed to make 5 somewhat weak points in support of the B-17, i've decided that i'll post some of the arguments in favour of the lancaster, because you obviously loved them so much you ignored them

- the lancaster bombed sucessfully by day and night (which you seem to think is the mark of a great bomber)
- _B17 and B24 could be used both day and night. lancaster was a sitting duck in the day._

-the lancaster was faster than the B-17 
- _Point for the lanc_

-the lancaster could carry a significantly higher payload than the B-17 
- _Point for the lanc_

-the lancaster could carry this higher payload considderably further than the B-17 

-the lancaster was more manouverable than the B-17 
- _B17 could fly faster and was far more maneuverable at altitudes between 26,000 ft and 35,000 ft (Lanc didnt fly that high, hehehehehe)_

-the lancaster was more versatile than the B-17, as proved by the various roles and bombing missions she performed
- _B17 was used in lots of roles in the Pacific. Did your Lanc ever do low level night time anti-shipping missions?_

-the lancaster remained in service longer than the B-17
_- I dont know how to respond to this. Was Britain so broke after WW2 they needed to use an obsolete bomber?_

-the lancaster was used in more air arms around the world than the B-17
- _- I dont know how to respond to this? Perhaps the US didnt have colonies to arm and equip?_

-the lancaster was converted to a very sucessfull long range transport that was used not only as the main british transport in the Berlin airlift but became the personal transport of the prime minister and the King of a large empire, the B-17 however, was not....... 
- _Bombers are bombers, cargo planes are cargo planes. You used Lancs, while we used C54's and Connies. While your PM flew in a Lanc, our presidents flew in style, hehehhehehe_

-an evolution of the lancaster wasd used sucessfully as a civilian transport 
- _- I dont know how to respond to this? Perhaps American already had a huge fleet of C47's and C54's?_

-the lancaster gave birth to bombers and maritime patrol aircraft that served into the 80's, the B-17 didn't........ 
- _ Are you saying that Britain used a 1930's airframe as a basis for jet aircraft? No wonder American aviation industry was so superior in the 50's and 60's_

-the lancaster bought into service some of the most advanced electronic warfare equiptment around at the time, the B-17 however, did not....... 
_- B17's were equipped with same equipment for specialized missions_


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 4, 2005)

I was biding my time


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 4, 2005)

Lanc, the B-17 also flew many rolls:

Lifeboat/Maritime versions
Flying Bombs
Dropped Drones as well as being drones
many different locations from Alaska to the South Pole and everywhere in between.
Except for Grand Slam/Tall Boy bombs (and I'm not sure they couldn't be fitted to the 17) If modified properly a B-17 could have done it too.
Had it been set up identicaly with the Lanc it's capabilities would have been pretty close. Yes the Lanc was faster and if set up for it could carry more/larger bombs. The B-17 could fly higher, which would have saved a number of Lancs during the war if they had that capacity. Once again the set-up matters a lot.

A major reason the B-17 was more limited is that there wasn't a need to fit the B-17 to many different rolls. The assumption that it simply couldn't isn't realistic.

I have to do some research here to find out just what would constitute a Night version of the B-17 so we can compare the two on a 1 to 1 basis. I've seen numbers as high as 9/10 tons of armor/armament in a B-17, thats a lot of bombs/gas!

wmaxt


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Aug 4, 2005)

Thanks for the pic of the Mk VI.... Ive been looking for a shot of one of those for a while!!

Do you have any pictures of the Lancaster used to test the Avro Orenda engines? Ive read a little about it and only have seen one picture of this animal.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 4, 2005)

oh boy, that gave me a good laugh, and i'm curious, just out of interest how old are you??



Syscom3 said:


> Better to go into a fight with 10 heavy MG's than a paltry 8 light MG's. Plus the added weight was insignificant.



that may be true however it is also important to remember that huge armourment was not at vital at night, for example forward firing guns are not needed as no night fighter pilot will make a head on pass at night, and you're now proberly wondering why the lanc had a forward turret, that's easy, for use in daylight and low level.........

and you think that the added weight is insignificant?? perhaps not for the guns themselves, but what about the 1.5 tons of ammo normally carried?? is that insignificant too??



syscom3 said:


> Forming up didnt take that much time



that's simply not true, form up took a long time, and everyone on here will back me up on this one.........



syscom3 said:


> A flight engineer is not a pilot



no, but as long as he can fly the plane, as many could, who cares 



syscom3 said:


> gunners and flight engineers were a dime a dozen. The "skill" positions took many months to be proficient



all crew posistions took many moths of training, whilst yes, pilots needed more training than the rest, but all posistions needed skilled training............



syscom3 said:


> Plus the radials had better high altitude performance than the merlins



so what?? the lanc didn't fly high enough for that too matter, what's your point  and the merlin was just about the most reliable inline out there........



> Statistically, a daylight bombing mission was more accurate for the small and middle sized targets than a nightime mission.



that's alright then, lancs only went for big targets 



> lancaster was a sitting duck in the day



odd, she made quite a few daylight bombing missions sucessfully.........

you say the B-17 was more manouverable at 26,000ft+, i bet she still wasn't manouverable enough to use her manouverability as ones of her best and most effective defenses..........



> Did your Lanc ever do low level night time anti-shipping missions



i don't belive so, did the B-17 ever go on low level night time anti-dam missions?? and when i say low level i mean the entire distance at a height of less than 60ft........



> Was Britain so broke after WW2 they needed to use an obsolete bomber?



well that was a pointless remark, the lanc remained in service so long because she was so good..........



> Perhaps the US didnt have colonies to arm and equip



odd, most of the other countries that used the lanc were not within the commonwealth........



> While your PM flew in a Lanc, our presidents flew in style



if our PM and KING wanted a proper american transport, they could have had one, as it was they were happy with their VIP avro yorks, because they were so spacious.......



> Perhaps American already had a huge fleet of C47's and C54's



parhaps, but the fact the lanc could be used as an airliner, is a point for the lanc in my book.........



> Are you saying that Britain used a 1930's airframe as a basis for jet aircraft



not at all, i'm saying the baisic design was so good that it was used as the baisis for other very sucessful designs........


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 4, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> Except for Grand Slam/Tall Boy bombs (and I'm not sure they couldn't be fitted to the 17)



i'm just curious, the B-17's bomb bay was all of a few feet long and had a walkway through the middle, there are you intending on putting these collosal bombs??


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 4, 2005)

oh and dave, the Lancaster 10-O picture you asked about, i only have pictures in books i'm afraid........


----------



## plan_D (Aug 4, 2005)

Is it me or did he just state that American aviation was superior in the 50s and 60s to British aviation? Of course because the USAF had a fighter capable of intercepting a Tu-95 "Bear" at 58,000 feet during the early 60s...

...wait a second, no they didn't! But come to me Mr. Bear for I am an English Electric Lightning the best interceptor in the Cold War. Top speed Mach 2.3, intial climb rate 50,000 feet per minute, (recorded) ceiling 60,000 feet - American aviation better than British? Mind while I roll around in laughter. 

And by the way, your bomber argument is just running out of steam. The Lancaster did anything and everything you could ask of a heavy bomber. You seem so attached to those ten .50cals, go pay attention to 1943 when the B-17 lacked escort and study how it got blown out of the air with great ease by German interceptors when there were no escort fighters around. 

How about when the RAF had the unpleasent experience of using B-17s during the day in the early years. They could defend themselves couldn't they!? No, no they couldn't because the B-17 couldn't defend itself. No bomber could, no bomber will ever be able to defend itself. They never have been able to, never will be able to. In fact, notice how everyone praises the Mosquito bomber variants for being UNARMED!? Because an unarmed bomber is a revolution in bomber design, they aren't fortresses in the sky...they're sitting ducks with the added weight of guns and ammo. 

You take all the ammo and guns out of a B-17 and rely solely on a decent, numbered roaming escort and you've got a faster and more capable bomber with about five crew.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Aug 4, 2005)

Lanc, the B-17 could carry the Tall Boy on wing racks. That is were the Disney bombs were carried.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 4, 2005)

It would only be able to carry one, since the load of a B-17 was 17,600 lbs. I've seen the B-17 with two JB-2 "Loon" bombs.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Aug 4, 2005)

Yes, but there would be a rack on each wing. I did not say Tall Boy*s* (plural).


----------



## WorkinStiff (Aug 4, 2005)

The Lanc dropped far more bombs on Germany then the B-17...It dropped them on apartment blocs, hospitals and kindergartens....As a killer of civilians it ranked second only to the gas chambers at Auschwitz....Because of it's longer range, it was able to slaughter civilians throughtout the Reich and it sure got the firebombs to the targets quicker then any B-17 could have....Because of it's almost total lack of armor and weak defensive firepower, it was forced to fly at night which made strategic bombing virtually impossible..(The Lanc day raids resumed near the wars end when the Luftwaffe had been swept from the skies)..So it burned down cities killing a million or more civilians.
The lancs were also the toughest of any bomber to escape from, which accounts for it's crew survival rates being even less then B-17s and B-24s despite flying in a less hostile combat environment, ( There's really no threat comparison between German nightfighters and the hordes of Me's, FW's and even jets faced by the daytime bombers)..
Revisionist historians have slammed the US daylight raids as ineffective, pointing out that German war production actually increased as plants were dispersed as the war progressed...They conveniently ignore the fact that fuel production was sharply curtailed by the daylight raids, ( 80 + %)...This meant that much of that increased weapons production never saw combat...The majority of the ME-262s produced, some 4/5, never fired a shot....Their wasn't enough fuel to properly train young pilots in the flying of such a complicated aircraft....In 1942, German fighter pilots were the world's best...By 1945 they were the world's worst and Anglo/ American aces fattened their scores against hapless rookies who totally out of their depth...During the Battle of the Bulge, the tide turned when German panzers ran out of fuel..Indeed the Germans first objective had been to secure the huge allied fuel dumb at either Antwerp or Rotterdam...They didn't make it...During a crucial tank battle on the Eastern Front, the Germans were prevailing....until their panzers ran out of gas...The inferior soviet tanks then overwhelmed them... 
And what had happened to that outstanding cadre of German fighter pilots of the early war???Will, they didn't die throwing themselves against Lancaster formations..But some 12000 Germans fighters were lost in trying to stop the American daylight raids, either shot down by the bombers, (6000+) or their escorts,( another 6000+)...or sometimes even their own flak...
I recently read an account of the airwar by an old ME-109 pilot. He described what fun it was to dogfight spits and hurricanes early in the war...He said that the only thing that really scared him was attacking a combat box of B-17s and that he lost most of his compatriots that way. In 1942, the Luftwaffe ruled the skies over the eastern front..By late 44 the Soviets did bacause the majority of German fighter squadrons had been pulled home to protect the fatherland from the American daylight raiders..This withdrawal of german fighters in the east allowed the Stomovicks to roam unmolested over the battlefields and exact a punishing toll on the panzers...
It was in early 44, ( I believe) when virtually the entire german aircraft industry was given over to fighter production to replace the staggering losses suffered in the futile attempt to stop the US daylight raids..This meant that late in the war after the Stukas had proven to vulnerable to fighter attack, the Germans had no effective ground attack A/C...
The b-17s flown by the RAF early in the war and the B-17s flown later by the US were different birds..The later models had much better armament and more powerfull engines..There has probably never been an aircraft able to take the damage a B-17 could and still fly.There are instances of them getting rammed headon, kamakazi like, by German fighters and still making it home.Despite the frightfull losses, no B-17 raid was ever turned back by enemy action..Structurally, it was incredibly strong with very low wing load( The weight supported by the wing was spread over a very large area)...The B-24 and Lanc had high wing load which meant that their wings were more vulnerable to catastrophic failure caused by battle damage. 
The combat life of a B-17 was 35% longer then a B-24...Had Lancs flown in the same daylight combat environment as the B-17s and B-24s I've no doubt that their average combat life would have been less then even the B-24...The B-17 with it's tougher, simpler radial engines required much less maintence then a lanc...Can you imagine a lanc squadron trying to operate in conditions like those found in the Aleutians, Solomons or New Guinea, or N Africa...There's a reason Lancs weren't deployed outside the UK...The simple B-17 was far cheaper to produce then a Lanc, and required less man hours and material, very important considerations during wartime when both are severely limited...

As for Mosquitos carring the same bomb load as a B-17...The Mosquito was a fantastic plane, great at low level hit and run raids like the Gestapo HQ in Copenhagen..But can you imagine 800 or 1000 of them trying to fight their way through to the oil refinery at Merseburg......
In short, the measure of a WWII bomber is much more then bomb load, range and speed...Even the mighty, but complicated B-29 was a maintence nightmare in the Pacific and more vulnerable to battle damage then the B-17....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 4, 2005)

Some good points there.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Aug 4, 2005)

> As for Mosquitos carring the same bomb load as a B-17...The Mosquito was a fantastic plane, great at low level hit and run raids like the Gestapo HQ in Copenhagen..But can you imagine 800 or 1000 of them trying to fight their way through to the oil refinery at Merseburg......



But, can you imagine those 800-1000 Mossies flying at least half as fast again as the slow B-17s and spread out over a vast areas; not all clumped together like the American heavies. The few LW fighters basically had a hard time (mostly weather related) intercepting the slow American heavies so try to imagine them trying to intercept Mossies over a much larger area and not knowing what the primary target was. Also, remember that those 1000 bomber missions of the heavies usually had several targets they went to.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Aug 4, 2005)

Just for Lanc,  

_An official British report states that heavies last an average of 28 missions and Mossies 92, and that taking average payload and build costs into account it can be calculated that Mossies are at least four times as cost effective as heavies in delivering a given tonnage of bombs_


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 5, 2005)

yes but the mossie was effective because of the relitively small numbers used, if you put hundreds, thousands even up on a bombing raid, they loose one of the advantages that made them so sucessfull.............



> There's really no threat comparison between German nightfighters and the hordes of Me's, FW's and even jets faced by the daytime bombers



er, yes there is  the german night fighters were equipt with radar and very heavy calibre weapons, and often allot of them, they were very deadly at night.........

and you state that it was because of the daylight raids that the flak guns were bought back to defend the home front, wasn't this also because of the RAF bombing the cities before the US were even in the war??



> either shot down by the bombers, (6000+)



check your figures again, and i believe you will find they're CLAIMED kills, very, very different to actual kills.....



> The b-17s flown by the RAF early in the war and the B-17s flown later by the US were different birds



they're still B-17s  the lancaster was a sucess as soon as it entered service and needed no modification, by the time the B-17 entered the war it'd had years of development and still wasn't at it's best......



> There has probably never been an aircraft able to take the damage a B-17 could and still fly



i'll assume you mean in WWII  and even then the B-29 is, at the very least, equal in this catagory..........



> Lanc had high wing load



go one then, let's hear the B-17's wing loading, do you actually know what the lanc's is or are you just quoting this all from some ill-researched and very incorrect american dribble they called a documentary??



> Can you imagine a lanc squadron trying to operate in conditions like those found in the Aleutians, Solomons or New Guinea, or N Africa



yes, because post war they were used all over the place, including asia, and in fact one lancaster, PD328 "Aries" operated all over the world, you know, when she circumnavigated it 



> There's a reason Lancs weren't deployed outside the UK...The simple B-17 was far cheaper to produce then a Lanc, and required less man hours and material, very important considerations during wartime when both are severely limited...



that is complete BULLSHIT!! if you had anything that slightly resebles a clue as to what you're talking about here you would know there's only one reason the lanc wasn't during the war, deployed outside the UK, it's quite simply that bomber command got them all, why?? because they were such great bombers! other air arms were screaming out for lancs but they could only supply them to bomber command..........



> The simple B-17 was far cheaper to produce then a Lanc, and required less man hours and material



can i just check this, how many parts to a B-17 was there?? i mean surely you must know this if you're willing to make a claim like that....

and fitting a tallboy to a B-17, the tallboy weighed 12,000lbs, was 21ft long and 38 inches across, have you got some sort of plan view or something one which you could show where you intend to put this bomb?? and may i take this oppertunity to remind you that it managed to fit in the lanc's huge bomb bay without a problem


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 5, 2005)

Guy's The B-17 is/was a great bomber and did the jod it was asked of it.
It could have, like the Lanc did, been converted to many roles had that been desired.
Had the rolls been reversed the Lanc would have been fitted with more armor, armament and crew and it would have carried less and required an escort.

The Lanc was a newer design with prior knowledge allowing a better initial design. That the B-17 design could be up graded as much as it was shows it is as flexable a design as the Lanc. I'm not saying the B-17 is better than/or that the Lanc is undeserving in any of it's accolades. To someone who doesn't know better (looking at some of these pages) would think the B-17 is barly acceptable and underserving of the accolades it's earned. I just think the planes are much closer in capabilities than the obvious look shows.

I've read the B-17 had a huge handicapp in weight from armor etc that the Lanc did not carry. I have to research this because I'm not sure of the context and specifics but I do know, looking at these aircraft in opposite roles is not fair. Trimmed like the Lanc the B-17 could have easily carried twice the load it normaly carried and fly further and faster too. Still not as much as the Lanc but I'd bet, a lot closer than you might think.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 5, 2005)

While WorkinStiff brings up some good points, I've gotta go with Lanc on this one. Sure you could say the B-17 was easier to build, IT WAS SMALLER!  The AAF was recognizing limitations in the B-17 as early as 1942 and intended to replace it with the B-32 (see the other thread). Personally the only big fault I find with the Lancaster was the lack of a co-pilot. I believe that if a second pilot was added to the crew there would of been better cockpit management and the Lancaster would of walked away with a better loss rate.


----------



## Glider (Aug 5, 2005)

I think I am right is saying that when Lancasters and Halifax's flew in daylight raids their loss rates were similar to those suffered by the B17's and B24's. 
If anyone has any pointers on this I would appreciate some help with this.

Also a B17 may be able to carry a Talboy type bomb, but does anyone know how far?


----------



## WorkinStiff (Aug 5, 2005)

In answer to Lancs Kicks Asses, (LKA) questions and the questioning and disbelief of my assertions above, I'd like to cite some sources for my assertions..The First is the eminent ENGLISH historian, Max Hastings author of some 18 books on military history including the seminal and award winning book; Bomber Command....The other is American Aviation historian, Eric Bergerud, author of: Fire in the Sky, the air war in the South Pacific...Another source is the comparitive study between B-17s and B-24s done by the AAF in 1944, which can be found at http://www.uk-us.org/stinet/warproduction.pdf
LAK thinks that the combat environment over the Reich, was as deadly at night as it was during the day.....Mr Hastings disagrees, (From his latest work: Armageddon)p, 310; "American A/C were more strongly built then their British conterparts which relied on darkness for protection." Furthermore, If there was no safety advantage to flying at night, when bombing accuracy was severly degraded, why did the RAF go to night raids?.The whole reason the RAF abandoned day raids early was that German night defenses were very less formidable then their daylight defenses..I think it's very telling that towards the wars end after the Luftwaffe had been utterly smashed, the RAF very gradually started sending Lancs and Halifaxes on day raids...
As far as 6000 kills by bomber gunners...Those are not claimed kills..(Indeed, kill claims by US bomber gunners far exceeded 6K)...The Germans were meticulous record keepers..As Nuremburg showed,They recorded every person sent into the gas chambers, every village razed on the Eastern front...Their records of A/C losses were reconciled with allied claims after the war and 6000+ for heavy bombers and 6100+ for US fighters is what is generally agreed upon according to several sources I've come across...(Fighter jocks also inflated their kill claims, even English ones...) 
The US began the Daylight campaign in the summer of 42..The Mustang escorts didn't really make there presence felt until the spring of 44...Before that time, the Luftwaffe fighter pilots usually just waited until the short range escorts turned back before attacking..German records show that the Luftwaffe lost thousands of fighters attacking Fort Lib formations between summer 42 and spring 44...There was nothing in the sky other then US Heavys, to have shot them down...
My claim that the B-17 was the toughest A/C certainly of WWII and quite possibly of all time: Above is a link to a site called: Battle damaged B-17s,(not battle damaged Lancs or B-24s or B29s) There's a reason the B-17 has such a WELL EARNED rep for toughness...In the AAF study cited above found that B-17s had a 35% longer combat life then a B-24 and that when similar targets were attacked the B-17s had a 40% less loss rate then the B-24s...Yet the B-24 was, as Mr Hastings stated, "more strongly built" then it's unarmored and undergunned British "counterparts"....( After the 44 study most Libs were sent to the Pacific where their longer range allowed them to reach targets a Fort couldn't reach while all Forts were sent to the far tougher combat environment of the ETO...)
Gliders assertion that Halifaxs and Lancs had similar loss rates to B-17s during daylight raids is incorrect...The Lancs and Halifaxs didn't come out from the cover of darkness until the Luftwaffe threat level had been reduced to almost nothing late war, so a real comparison is impossible...
CMDR Mitsugu Kofukuda, commander of the IJN 6th air group: "The B-17 was the most difficult aircraft for the Zeros to shoot down.They were extremely difficult to set afire with the Zero's 20 mm cannon shells. Our pilots soon learned that they could rarely be destroyed unless the pilots were hit..The fierce resistance with which they opposed our fighters was a serious problem. In my opinion, which is shared by many Japanese combat pilots, the ability of the B-17 to defend itself and carry out their missions, despite fighter opposition, was a deciding factor in the outcome of the war.....and from Commander Masatake Okumiya, staff officer, IJN CARDIV 2....:" By Sept 42 the B-17s had become a grave problem and the Japanese Navy tried every means to destroy the troublesome raiders. Our fighter pilots became desperate but failed to increase the number of destroyed bombers..The Boeings flew undaunted despite the attacks of Zero fighters, which the enemy's heavy machine guns too often destroyed"....(There's similar testimony from Luftwaffe pilots but my book on the ETO Air War is loaned out...).
Not only did Forts which had been rammed headon by FWs traveling
300 plus knots, make it home but there was a case over Hamburg in 44 where a flak burst sent a fort up into the one above...They became locked together like two mating dragonflies..The top Forts engines were feathered while the botton Fort supported them both on only 3 good
engines...They were actually flown down to a landing in a field in which several crew, who hadn't bailed, walked away and were taken prisoners by some amazed German soldiers.....(Oops gotta go, more later..


----------



## WorkinStiff (Aug 5, 2005)

You know LKA your ranting response to my initial posting misquoted me on several points....Maybe you could calm down, wipe the spittle from your monitor and read what I actually said....I never claimed that a Fort could carry a Tall boy nor did I claim that the reason the nazis pulled 10,000 88s home to defend the fatherland was because of the daylight missions alone...
What I said was that in response to the daylight raids, the Luftwaffe withdrew many fighter squadrons from the Russian front, as well as Norway and the Med Theater, home in a futile attempt to stop the US daylight raiders...In doing so it not only opened things up for the Russians, but it also bled the Luftwaffe dry of it's best pilots and thousands of fighters..Hastings states: 'From the spring of 44 on, the daylight bomber offensive brought the luftwaffe to it's knees"...
The measure of the best WWII bomber is the effect it had in the real world of WWII combat, and not, simply the plane which flew the fastest and the furthest with the mostest bomb load....Hastings states: "The USAAF recieved less credit then it deserved for this success", ( the defeat of Germany).......Later he states: "The USAAF strategic offensive achieved formidable success in crippling Nazi oil production and transport links.By contrast, the RAF's area offensive against German cities contributed little to the defeat of the Naziis and instead, cast a moral shadow over the allied victory"....He also states that Nazi Armaments minister Albert Speer reported to Hitler in Jan 45 that the German economy was mere weeks away from total collapse largely because of the collapse in oil production and the destruction of the rail system... 
What havoc did the B-17s and B-24s wreak on Nazi oil production???The Nazi War machine needed 300K tons of fuel a month..By April 44, they were operating on 180K tons, by years eng 10K tons...Meanwhile the mighty Lancs were burning cities to the ground....
Yea, I know, the mighty lancs sank the Titpitz....Here's what Hastings says about that: "All military achievements can be judged in the wider context of grand stradegy..For instance, if the RAF's Bomber Command had suceeded in it's efforts to sink the Tirpitz in 41 or 42 or even 43, this would have made a notable contribution to the the war. Yet, by the time the RAF destroyed the Tirpitz in Nov 44,it's sinking had become strategically irrelevant, A MERE CLEVER CIRCUS TRICK." (That's your own esteemed war historian speaking....)
Still more Hastings: "The success of the USAAF could have been swifter and more complete if the RAF had also committed themselves to the oil campaign." Of course to do that the unarmored and undergunned Lancs would have had to come out from the protection of the darkness and fly daylight raids into the teeth of the formidable German defenses....


----------



## evangilder (Aug 6, 2005)

While there are some good points raised there, I think there is a big emphasis on what the Americans did. It was a team effort, plain and simple. The Brits said Americans were crazy for daylight bombing. The losses that were experienced in the 8th AF before escorts were available were atrocious.

In this case, I think that he is giving too much credit to the daylight bombing campaign. Calling it a "great success" made me laugh. I know a handful of B-17 crewmen that would say the same thing. Yes, it was the bombings of the oil industries that did the trick, but how many raids were made to take out aircraft factories, ball bearing plants, tank plants, etc. If you call sending thousand plane raid for months at a time to put an end to oil production a great success, I don't. 

The RAF also destroyed rail junctions and factories. Accuracy improved with H2S, but still dropping an iron bomb from high altitude is not very accurate, period. You can get close. I don't care if it was day or night. You may want to revisit the strategic bombing survey and see how inaccurate daylight bombing was. Blaming the RAF alone for killing civilians and bombing out cities is completely inaccurate.

It was the combined effort of the USAAF and the RAF _together_ that beat the Luftwaffe.


----------



## WorkinStiff (Aug 6, 2005)

Why Was the Fort So Tough??????Well according to Bergerud, there were many reasons..The B-17 was the only 4 engined bomber that was designed with "Low wing configuration."The downside was that the spar or wing root, extended into the fuselage constricting the room available for a bomb bay...But it was a hell of a long stronger at the root, which is why all fighters and the tough old c-47 were built that way......
The B-17 also possessed the biggest wings and tail, relative to it's size weight, of any WWII bomber....Compare photos of B-17s with those of other 4 engined bombers and notice how much more wing and tail area (and a bigger wing root) a fort has, relative to the total size and weight of the A/C....Bergerud states that it had the lowest wing load of any WWII bomber.."THe clean but conventional design also contributed to tremendous structural strength." The b-17 was amazingly stable, especially at low speeds, a big advantage when trying to land a cripple, or trying to land on one of the slanted, muddy or icy strips in the Aleutians, New Guinea, or the Solomons...Yet according to Bergerud;" The B-17 had very good performance at high altitude, and for a heavy bomber, manuvered well."
The B-17 required less maintence then it's other 4 engined counterparts, a factor born out in the 44 AAF study.....It was, I believe, the only heavy which could, (and did!) operate successfully under the extremely bad conditions found in the Aleutians, Solomons and New Guinea early in the Pacific campaign..There, fields were mud (with ice in the aleutians), often not level, ( some actually slanted downhill!), and maintence was poor as both spare parts and trained air technicians were in very short supply...Those fields were also under frequent attack and it's hard to maintain a plane when you're being bombed by Bettys, strafed by Zeros and shelled by cruisers...The few B-24s which operated in that environment had a much higher accident, crash and break down rate then the B-17s... which was, again, born out in the AAF study....Again the simpler, less complicated, ( with fewer parts),and tougher b-17 was the best plane under the real wartime conditions existing at that time, and in those places....
Later when the Japanese Navy and Air Arms were decimated, when there were plenty of spare parts and trained technitions, when the Seebeas showed up and were able to grade out nice LEVEL concrete runways, the more tepermental b-24 and b-29s showed up...They were then able to operate from the new bases and the shorter ranged b-17s were then sent exclusively to the much tougher combat environment of ETO daylight raids.....
The fact that POSTWAR, the lancs also operated in many parts of the world proves little....LKA makes a false comparison..They operated from nice level concrete runways, had plenty of petrol, spare parts and technicians to maintain them.Nor were their bases under near constant attack, ( they weren't under ANY attack.Did Lancs see any combat after WWII???like in Korea...B-24s and B-29s did)..Hell, b-52s operate successfully all over the world...Can you imagine b-52s, ( or b-29s or lancs) trying to operate from henderson field on Guadalcanal under nighty shelling, or the aleutians or New Guinea with its downhill runways.....
So what did the humble, slow, simply built but incredibly tough, 1930s designed B-17 accomplish in WWII...Well, in the Pacific it held the line, operated under terrible conditions, and turned the tide against the Japanese...Was it effective?....Read what the two Japanese officers said above.....
In the ETO,( with substantial help from the B-24) it merely destroyed nazi oil production, the rail system and bled the Luftwaffe dry of pilots and AC...It was more responsible for the destruction of the Luftwaffe, ( The Worlds greatest air force in 41) then any other single allied aircraft.. Between the staggering losses in planes and pilots suffered in the futile attempt to stop the Fortress formations and the destruction of oil production, the Luftwaffe was finished.....The diversion of fighter resources from the Russian and other fronts brought home, only to be lost in attacks against American combat boxes opened things up for the Soviet AF and helped swing the tide on that front....I've read in several accounts that more german A/C fell to B-17 gunners then fell to any other single allied A/C......It was the one bomber consistently tough enough to punch its way through the toughest air defenses of WWII...It was NEVER turned back....
As for the lanc,, It was grossly missused, hostage to Bomber Harris's obsession with burning German cities...Hitler commented that he welcomed the destruction of his cities because it made the survivors, who'd lost their homes and families, hardcore bitter enders who had nothing to lose and would fight to the death...( according to Hastings, page 312)..The lanc sunk the Tirpitz, (Big Deal!) and destroyed the dams on the Ruhr...( Now THAT was Incredible, no other bomber in the world could have pulled that off!)Had the Lanc been given armor and 50cals, ( at a somewhat diminished bomb load), It could have joined the Forts and Libs on daylight raids that really accomplished something, and the war might have ended sooner....


----------



## KraziKanuK (Aug 6, 2005)

UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY
SUMMARY REPORT
(Pacific War)

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey: European Theater of Operations

http://www.angelfire.com/super/ussbs/

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm

WStiff, could you make some paragraphs in your posts. As they are now, they are hard to read.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 6, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> WStiff, could you make some paragraphs in your posts. As they are now, they are hard to read.


 Yeah, they are just a bit hard to read the way they are. Maybe you could just space them slightly from now on?
But they're very interesting. 8)


----------



## KraziKanuK (Aug 6, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes but the mossie was effective because of the relitively small numbers used, if you put hundreds, thousands even up on a bombing raid, they loose one of the advantages that made them so sucessfull.............



They would? How so?


----------



## WorkinStiff (Aug 6, 2005)

My purpose in this post has not been to denigrate the Lanc..It was a wonderfull bomber, superior to the B-17, ( B-24) in virtually all respects..The Fort was updated 30s technology. It could no more compete with a Lanc in the measurable areas of fastest, furthest mostest bomb load, the a Lanc could compete with a 50s technology b-47..........
................My point was to point out the considerable strengths of the B-17,and show how those strengths played out well in the savage, "real world"combat conditions of WWII...I also wanted to counter the denigration of it's capabilities and record by previous posters on this thread..Indeed, to have read this thread is to come away believing that the B-17 was no more capable and played no more significent role then the Lockeed Hudson...
.........After the war, there began an ongoing dismissal and denigration of the USAAFs strategic daylight bombing campaign in Europe...It was seen as largely ineffective, a waste of men and resources.....Indeed, Some of the USAF's own studies and surveys buttressed this conclusion..Even as the war raged the Daylight campaign came to be seen in an unfavorable light by the likes of Eisenhower Churchill.....This was partly due to the inflated claims and predictions of it's advocates. Bomber Harris consistently made exaggerated claims of the effectiveness of his night area raids.Some AAF general blithy stated that a ground campaign wasn't needed, The B-17s would bring Germany to it's knees by the end of 43....well okay, the end of 44.....
............In the Pacific, the mighty B-17 was going to rout the Imperial Japanese Navy single handedly, bombing from 15K and 20K feet...That proved so ineffective that Japanese naval officers became contempuous, and some didn't even bother with evasive manuvers when the Forts were overhead.....( One IJN Captain lost his destroyer, because he ignored the Forts and one of them got lucky and blew his ship out of the water).After tactics changed, the forts became more effective....The first skip bombing success by any a/c was achieved off Buin, New Guinea in Nov 42, when a battle damaged Fort, made a low level run on a destroyer...The Bombs fell short and skipped into the side of the ship, sinking it...("Golly Gee, We discovered something")...Later a skip bombing fort heavily damaged the cruiser Aoba, knocking it out of the war for a year...Skip bombing was then perfected and became a devastating tactic, though more suited to and usually carried out by A-20s, B-25s and Aussie Beaufighters.........
...Back to Europe............Lately, Some noted Historians have come to see the AAF daylight strategic campain in a much more favorable light, as is shown by Mr Hasting's quotes above...Many of the successes and secondary benefits of the daylight bombing campaign which were not apparent during and right after the war have only come to light after years of diligent research by folks like Mr Hastings...
.......Many critics claimed that although the AAF enjoyed "some success" against the nazi oil and rail infrastructure, the other attacks against sub pens, arms factories, steel mills and A/C factories were mostly futile and did little to win the war.....After all, production of arms, tanks and A/C actually increased in the face of the AAF bombing campaign....Well, where the sub pens were concerned, the bombing had little effect.....But lets look at the other catagories...........
..........In 1942-43, Nazi armaments minister, Albert Speer had to overcome three considerable problems.....
..1...For the germans to win the war he had to increase arms and industrial production dramaticly.....
..2....the US 8th AF was coming through and plastering his factories.....
.3.....Despite beefing up their air defenses and inflicting high losses, the Luftwaffe had proved unable to stop the B-17s...
and a 4th point......German intel indicated that 1000s more forts and libs were coming to England and that the Yanks and Brits were suceeding in their attempt to design a long range fighter, ( the Mustang and a new long range version of the p-47)....It was only gonna get a hell of a lot worse......
....He decided to widely disperse his industry to smaller, hidden, often underground locations....And he certainly increased production...but at what cost........It took alot of resources and time to reassemble his factories underground an disbursing his factories into smaller units meant that the assembled components had to be brought to a central location for final assembly...That was less efficent...and it took oil and rail lines to bring them together....
......In 43, the 8th AF was plastering the giant Focke Wulf complex at, Regensburg,( ? I think)...It was broken down and it's components reassembled elsewhere in smaller, seperate units...The building of Focke Wulfs was made more difficult, less efficent and more resource consuming because of the bombing campaign....Yes, in the face of all that, the industrious Germans still managed to increase production....But how much MORE would German War production have increased had the Germans not been forced scatter and hide their factories......
.....Another factor;...In the prebombing Germany, those above ground factories were largely manned by hard working, patriotic Germans....In the later underground factories, much of the work was done by starved, ill treated, slave labor, who not only were less efficent but often actually sabotaged the arms they were producing...


----------



## WorkinStiff (Aug 6, 2005)

....In the end, it didn't matter, the increased production in tanks and planes and ball bearings didn't count for squat...For without fuel to power them trains to transport them to the front, they were USELESS!!...They produced some 2500 me-262s....Less then 500 saw combat, (lucky for us!!)...The rest made wonderfull targets for allied fighter-bombers as they sat, fuelless and pilotless, on their tarmacks.....
......I recall reading the account of a grizzled ground vet who'd fought his way, ( with the Big Red One), across N Africa, Sicily and France......He said that he finally realized that we were going to win when he got to France and saw the Germans doing all their transport by horse and donkey cart....The Krauts were out of fuel and it was only a matter of time before they were finished....
......So let's look at what the widely criticized AAF daylight campaign really accomplished:
...........It destroyed the German oil industry...Once that was accomplished Germany was finished.....
.....It destroyed the rail system......
......It played the major role in the utter destruction of the Luftwaffe and it's cadre of experienced pilots.....

.......It caused Speer to hide and dispurse his industry making it less efficeint and hindering production.....
.......Some secondary benefits:
.....Some 10,000 88mm batteries were kept home to defend the fatherland from both day night raids..( There were some 1100 around the giant oil refinery at Merseburg alone),.That's 10K LESS artillary pieces raining shells down on Brit, Yank and Russian troops......
.......Numerous fighter squadrons were withdrawan fron Norway, The Med and the Russian front in the futile attempt to stop the B-17s and B-24s....This allowed the Soviet AF to wrest control of the air from the Luftwaffe and allowed the Storomovicks to slaughter the panzers....( See how nothing occurs in a vacuum?....How would the war have turned out if those nazi fighter squadrons stayed deployed on the Eastern front, keeping the Soviet ground attck squadrons ineffective...What difference would those 10K 88 batteries made if deployed to Normandy, Italy and the Russian Front?)
....So You Seeee!,as modern historians are discovering, when judging the effectiveness of the US strategic bombing campaign, it pays to dig deeper then; " Well! They were producing more ball bearings in 45 then in 41, so the bombing campaign was OBVIOUSLY a failure!"......


----------



## KraziKanuK (Aug 6, 2005)

> They produced some 2500 me-262s.



I don't know where you got your for 262 production number from for the Amercans after the war have the number as 1433 with effective production losses being 497.

Actually the German used horses most of the time from day 1.

Messeschmitt was in Regensburg. The main Focke-Wulf factory was Bremen.


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 6, 2005)

Some items to compare:

B-17G
Engines - 4 1,200hp
Crew - 10
Wing Span - 103ft
Length - 74ft 4in
Empty Weight - 54,900lbs
Loaded - 72,134lbs
Max TO - 74,000lbs
Max Speed - 300mph
Cruise Speed - 180mph loaded at 25,000ft
Range Max - 3,400mi
Range Typ - 2,000mi With 6,000lb bomb load
Service ceiling - 35,600ft

Lanc
Engines - 4 - Merlin 1,492hp
Crew - 7
Wing Span - 102
Length - 69ft 6in
Empty Weight - 36,000lbs 
Loaded - 55,000lbs
Max TO - 72,000lbs
Max Speed - 261mph
Cruise Speed - 239mph at 21,000ft
Range with 10,000lbs bombs 1,040mi
Range with 7,000lbs bombs and aux fuel 2,680mi
Service ceiling - 24,400ft

These two aitcraft are almost Identicle in all respects. Fly a B-17G at night without 3 crewmen ang the chin turret and the weight savings would equal the 7,000lbs at 2,680mi of the Lanc. Fair over the waist positions, remove the armor, and support equipment (oxy, guns, amo) for those positions and the B-17 would exceed it. 

The B-17 has a higher ceiling, top speed, is tougher and lower maintenance too. The Lanc has a higher cruise and a better variety of bomb loads. Both planes were equiped for far different roles and did well in those roles. If were going to compare them lets do it in similar conditions. They both deserve the respect given them over the years. 8) 

References Lancaster-archive.com and Wakipedia and warbird ally.com

wmaxt


----------



## evangilder (Aug 7, 2005)

I never said the B-17 wasn't a good airplane. What I did say was that the Lanc was better.

You give alot of credit to the US bombing campaign. Yes, bombing the oil facilities was what did the trick in the end, but the _goal_ was to end production. It did not do that, so how could you claim it a great success. It's not just about ball bearings. It's tanks, aircraft, rockets etc. Whole assemblies. 

You have completely left the RAF out of the last posts as far as their contribution to the effort, which was much more than you want to give them credit for. The Americans alone did not end the war, whether you want to see it that way or not. It was a combined effort by many countries.


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 7, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I never said the B-17 wasn't a good airplane. What I did say was that the Lanc was better.
> 
> You give alot of credit to the US bombing campaign. Yes, bombing the oil facilities was what did the trick in the end, but the _goal_ was to end production. It did not do that, so how could you claim it a great success. It's not just about ball bearings. It's tanks, aircraft, rockets etc. Whole assemblies.
> 
> You have completely left the RAF out of the last posts as far as their contribution to the effort, which was much more than you want to give them credit for. The Americans alone did not end the war, whether you want to see it that way or not. It was a combined effort by many countries.



I agree, though I'm not sure the Lanc was better. The two planes were very close in their size and capabilities but optimized for their rolls and excelled at them. The RAF and the AAF also fought in a complimentary style and together won the war, I have no desire to down play the RAF , the Lancaster or the roles they served in the war.

wmaxt


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 23, 2005)

WEll it is good we are talking, and I am glad to be reading hear again. Even after 60 years the war is still giving up secrets and teaching new things


----------



## plan_D (Aug 23, 2005)

WS, your posts are really hard to read. Can you organise them into paragraphs please? 

On the point of oil, Bomber Command dropped more tonnage on oil plants than the US 8th Air Force during November 1944. That is proof enough to show the Bomber Command was dedicating at least some of it's resources towards halting German oil production. No where near enough but some nevertheless. 

Bomber Command was operating during the day throughout 1944 in odd raids here and there. During Operation Hurricane the US 8th bombed in the morning, Bomber Command in the afternoon and a second wave from Bomber Command at night. Amongst other nuisance raids from Mosquitos.


----------



## Gemhorse (Aug 25, 2005)

I've been reading Workingstiff's assertions with interest, myself possessing Hasting's ''Bomber Command'', and other books on the subject. - I guess it's like us all reading the Bible, we would all have our own respective 'tilt' on it....

What really made the Lancaster such a remarkable aircraft, able to carry so much and endure such punishment, was in it's original design parameter as a Manchester, as it was supposed to be able to be versatile enough to also carry torpedos, which led to it's long large bomb-bay [33 ft.]
It was also supposed to be catapult-assisted on take-off, and the projected stresses involved, led to the very strong structure of the initial fuselage/bomb-bay/wing-root section. During production, every 10th Lancaster was dived to 375 mph, as in combat they were often required to corkscrew initially, to throw the attacking fighter off....

This is a far cry from droning-on in a Fort, in formation with other Forts, hosing away with .50's from behind all that armour....Furthermore, once USA decided to get into WWII, Britain couldn't obtain .50's because they were all going into Forts, etc.....
However, many Luftwaffe nightfighter pilots found that 4x .303's fired by alert tail-gunners, also giving the mid-upper a chance of a squirt during the corkscrew, more than enough to stop their props.....

The Fortress was a great aircraft, able to operate better when with escorts, the Lancaster was a supreme Nightbomber, working in great concert with Mosquito bombers, pathfinders and nightfighters....


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 23, 2005)

Well hello all I have been gone for some time, and now I am trying to get back. I just finished moving, so things are still slow, and have a new job.

Anywho, this B-=17 Lancaster debate is the best one yet. But i have a question if we use the B-17G for our arguments, what Lanc modle would be the similar time? That would be the best way to get this right.


----------



## mosquitoman (Nov 23, 2005)

Lanc III, but the design hardly changed at all


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 24, 2005)

True, the Model III lanc was similar to the previous one in just about every respect. While i like the Lancasters abilities as a bomber, i would just have to go with the B-17G. I love that aircraft, and even the name is awesome, "flying fortress". And dammit it was, ball turret, dorsal turret, chin turret and nose guns, and that awesome looking tail turret, along with windows in the sides of the fuesalague for guns. Theyre both good aircraft, and while statistically the Lancaster may have been a better bomber, in a daylight raid, i would much rather be in a B-17.


----------



## V-1710 (Nov 24, 2005)

The B-17 was the best high-altitude day bomber in the ETO. The Lancaster was the best low altitude night bomber in the ETO. It's as simple as that. The B-29 was technically the best heavy bomber of the war, I think.


----------



## mosquitoman (Nov 24, 2005)

I would disagree with the B-17 being the best ETO daylight bomber and say that the B-24 was better


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 24, 2005)

V-1710 said:


> The B-29 was technically the best heavy bomber of the war, I think.



No, the B-29 was absolutely the best heavy bomber of the war, PERIOD!


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 25, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> V-1710 said:
> 
> 
> > The B-29 was technically the best heavy bomber of the war, I think.
> ...


Agreed FBJ, it had no equal (although the B-36 was almost ready)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2005)

Agreed during WW2 the B-29 had absolutly no equal. Not even your beloved Lancaster Lanc was as good as the B-29. She was the most advanced heavy bomber to be see service in WW2.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 25, 2005)

We should be debating on what was the 2nd best bomber of WW2


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2005)

Agreed. 

Here is a short comparison of the 3 aircraft that I think would be up for debate on that. Obviously these will not tell which aircraft was the best but still some interesting figures.

*B-17*

Crew: 10 
Length: 74 ft 4 in (22.7 m) 
Wingspan: 103 ft 10 in (31.6 m) 
Height: 19 ft 1 in (5.8 m) 
Wing area: 1527 ft² (141.9 m²) 
Empty: 54,900 lb (24,900 kg) 
Loaded: 72,134 lb (32,720 kg) 
Maximum takeoff: 74,000 lb (34,000 kg) 
Powerplant: 4× Wright R-1820-97 turbo-supercharged radials, 1,200 hp (895 kW) 

Maximum speed: 300 mph (480 km/h). 
Range: 3,400 miles (5,500 km) 
Service ceiling: 35,600 ft (10,900 m) 
Rate of climb: ft/min ( m/min) 
Wing loading: 47.2 lb/ft² (231 kg/m²) 
Power/mass: 0.0655 hp/lb (110 W/kg) 

Armament
13× Browning M-2 0.50 calibre (12.7 mm) machine guns (with optional extra nose armament fitted in glazed nose) 
8,000 lb (3,600 kg) of bombs 

*B-24*

Crew: 7-10 
Length: 67 ft 8 in (20.6 m) 
Wingspan: 110 ft 0 in (33.5 m) 
Height: 18 ft 0 in (5.5 m) 
Wing area: 1,048 ft² (97.4 m²) 
Empty: 52,200 lb (23,700 kg) 
Loaded: 55,000 lb (25,000 kg) 
Maximum takeoff: 65,000 lb (29,500 kg) 
Powerplant: 4× Pratt Whitney R-1830 turbo-supercharged radials, 1,200 hp (900 kW) 

Maximum speed: 290 mph (470 km/h) 
Cruising speed: 215 mph (346 km/h) 
Range: 2,100 miles (3,400 km) 
Ferry range: 3,700 miles (6,000 km) 
Service ceiling: 28,000 ft (8,500 m) 
Rate of climb: 1,025 ft/min (312 m/min) 
Wing loading: 52.5 lb/ft² (256 kg/m²) 
Power/mass: .0873 hp/lb 144 W/kg 

Armament
10× .50 calibre (12.7 mm) M2 machine guns 
12,800 lb (5,800 kg) of bombs 

*Lancaster*

Length 69 ft 5 in 21.18 m 
Wingspan 102 ft 31.09 m 
Height 19 ft 7 in 5.97 m 
Wing area 1,300 ft² 120.8 m² 

Weights 
Empty 36 828 lb 16,705 kg 
Loaded 63,000 lb 28,636 kg 

Powerplant 
Engines 4 Rolls-Royce Merlin XX piston engines 
Power 1,280 hp 954 kW 
Performance 
Maximum speed 280 mph at 15,000 ft 448 km/h at 5,600 m 
Combat range 2,700 miles with minimal bomb load 4,320 km with minimal bomb load 

Service ceiling 23,500 ft 8,160 m 

Armament 
Guns 8 x Browning 0.303 in (7.62 mm) machine-guns in three turrets 
Bombs normal 14,000 lb (6,350 kg)
special versions 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) 

My breakdown is this on which aircraft had the advantage in what:

Speed: B-17
Range: B-17
Service Cieling: B-17
Bomb Load: Lancaster
Defensive Armament: B-17

Based on just these stats each aircraft had its advantages and disadvantages. I go with the Lancaster, B-17, and then B-24 as the 2nd, 34rd, and 4th best bombers of WW2. I still like the B-17 better than the Lancaster though.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 25, 2005)

Maybe we need to add the B32 to the list.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 25, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Maybe we need to add the B32 to the list.



It was used in combat....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2005)

While it would have proven to be a great bomber, I would not classify it as one of the best bombers of WW2 only because of its limited use. Had it been used more, I am sure it would second only to the B-29.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 25, 2005)

I agree, I think many would of compared it to the same way the B-17 was compared to the B-24


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 25, 2005)

I have to agree with you regarding the B32. It didnt see enough action to be included.

Im still not decided on what #2 is. For each advantage the B17, B24 and Lanc has, its offset by a fault.

One thing I was thinking of, is if there was a version of the Lanc built with tandam cockpit seating and equiped with .50 cal turrets, that would have made it a true "ass kicker" in the PTO. The range and payload would allow it to fly all over the PTO and do some serious damage!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 25, 2005)

It had potential, but I think it only participated in about a half dozen missions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2005)

Yeah but the Lancs range was not as good as the B-17's or the B-29's.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 25, 2005)

I was thinking more of the Lanc in the PTO in 1943 and 1944.

It had a better payload compared to the B24 for VERY long ranges. A Lanc flying from Darwin could put most of the important oil fields in Borneo under attack, with catastrophic results for Japan.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2005)

I can agree with that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 26, 2005)

adler, your figures on the last page, for what model of the B-17 were they? 'cos i've only heard of early B-17s hitting 300mph, and the B-17 cruised at 182mph, the lanc at 210 fully loaded, similarly the 282mph top speed of the lanc is it's fully loaded speed, once it'd dropped it's load and was on half fuel it could easily be tipped over 300mph.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2005)

Only the B-17G cruised at 182mph Lanc. The Fs which were used more than the G's cruised at over 200. Also the same goes for the B-17 except for the G model. It could fly over 300 once it was not fully loaded. It was faster than a Lanc. Dont take me wrong even though I like the 17 better than the Lanc, I agree with you the Lanc was better.

Max Speeds

B-17 C D: 323mph
B-17E F: 317 mph
B-17G: 287mph

Cruising Speed

B-17 C D: 250 mph
B-17E F: 210 mph
B-17G: 182 mph

As for you argument about the Lanc carrying more bomb load though. You are correct it could but at less of a distance. The B-17 could carry up to 12800lb which is only about 1200lb less than a normally loaded Lancaster (not including the ones that were modified to carry the damn 22000lber). If it carried the 12800lb then its range would have been similar to the Lancaster. However with the 7000lb bomb load the B-17 achieved a higher range and that was needed to reach deep into Germany.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 26, 2005)

you kidding me, germany aint that far away, take a look see.........


----------



## book1182 (Nov 26, 2005)

I would take out the B-24 because it was a handful in formation. I like the Lanc. but I think it would need to operate at day to see how it would stack up with the B-17 and B-24. I like the later model B-17's for the reason that it was a good bombing platform. It could have carried a better bombload farther though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> you kidding me, germany aint that far away, take a look see.........



I know where Germany is in relation to England Lanc. I live in Germany.  However the bombers required the range to fly to there targets deep into German territory. You have to remember that Germany was not just Germany in 1942. That is where the B-17 came in. It had the range to hit almost anywhere in "Germany".


----------



## delcyros (Nov 26, 2005)

I wonder how Lanc and B-17 had performed if they had to change their roles:
Lanc for heavy daytime runs
and B-17 modified with ground radar for night duties.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2005)

Interesting idea. They would have had to modify the Lancs defensive armament though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 26, 2005)

why? no it wasn't the heaviest but bombing by day we'd get the P-51 escorts (surely if were're just swapping the planes we should just swap the planes not what comes with them) the the B-17's main escort was their escorts, not their defensive firepower, even the B-17's guns were useless if she was unescorted..........

and the yanks would have to give their tactics some serious revision, you can't fly in tight formations by night, and american radar technology was behind britain's, which would include the ground radar you want to fit to these B-17s, don't get me wrong i'm not saying they couldn't bomb at not, it's just they wouldn't be as good as the brits...................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2005)

Negative the formations that the B-17s flew were part of there defence. A Lanc formation with escorts would have been eaten alive even more than the B-17s were. B-17s were still hit hard even with P-51Ds.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 26, 2005)

but you cannot deny that the escorts were their best chance of safety?? and a lanc can still corkscrew and drop by day, admitidly they wont be as effective but it'll still put the rookie pilots off.........


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 26, 2005)

The US and Britain freely shared their radar technology during the war.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 26, 2005)

Lancasters would have been taken out of the sky in un-escorted daylight raids with even worse casualties than the B-17s were, no question. The lanc was rugged yes, but the lack of defensive armament, and slower speed would have made them even more succeptible than were B-17s. With a P-51 escort, Lancasters would still suffer rather heavily compared to the B-17s. B-17s were faster, and just better armed, and can come home with the worst of damage.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 26, 2005)

when you're struggling to reach 300 what's a few miles an hour speed difference when you're getting attacked by 400mph fighters?? however i do agree about the damage tollerance.........


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 26, 2005)

what speeds did the heavies cruise at i think between 200 and 240 knots just aguess and tge fighters maybe 280 and 320 from talking to mossie pilots 240 was their cruise speed


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 27, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but you cannot deny that the escorts were their best chance of safety?? and a lanc can still corkscrew and drop by day, admitidly they wont be as effective but it'll still put the rookie pilots off.........



And corkscrewing in a bomber to get away from a Bf-109 or Fw-190 during the day would have 100% ineffective. The escorts provided a great deal of the defense however the formations that the B-17's flew in with there defensive armament was a great deal of there defense. They rellied on each other to cover each other.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 28, 2005)

I don't think the corkscrew would have been 100% effective. In time, the Germans would have been able to develop a way to counter that and still go after the Lanc. I think Erich mentioned once that they had a way to time it so that the Lanc would corkscrew and come out of it, right into the waiting guns of the fighters.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 28, 2005)

i never said it would be 100% effective, but you cannot say it would be 100% in-effective adler, rookie pilots wouldn't see it coming and there's nothing any pilot can do if the lanc drops suddenly..........

and you seem to be skirting around the issue of the B-17's flying by night, you'd need new tactics you can't fly huge formations by night..........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 28, 2005)

I can just see a formation of Lancasters corkscrewing to avoid enemy fighters by day. They'd manage to do the intercepting fighters' work for them just through the mid-air collisions.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 28, 2005)

no one said it was fool proof


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 28, 2005)

A B17 or B24 flying alone during the day was an airplane waiting to be shot down. A Lanc flying alone during the day would be no different.

B17's and B24's could fly at night. They just wouldnt be doing it in large close formations. 

If there was one benifit the large B17 and B24 formations had, is at least they could inflict some defensive punishment back at the fighters. Not as much as was expected, but some none the less.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 28, 2005)

> A Lanc flying alone during the day would be no different.



i never said it wouldn't...........



> B17's and B24's could fly at night. They just wouldnt be doing it in large close formations.



this's what i mean, people say they will but they don't give alternative tactics atleast i'm trying to suggest something!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i never said it would be 100% effective, but you cannot say it would be 100% in-effective adler, rookie pilots wouldn't see it coming and there's nothing any pilot can do if the lanc drops suddenly..........



Um yeah corkscrewing would not work at all Lanc. Look at this way. Lancaster droppes suddenly as you say, hes doing about 300mph (well be generous, hes also in a dive now  ). Fw-190 flys by and then turns into a dive and shoots the crap out of Lancaster flying circles in a dive. Do you see what I mean. I dont care how maneuverable you believe your Lancaster is, she was not more manueverable than any German fighter that would be sent up to intercept her.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 28, 2005)

ok firstly dropping is not diving, if you rear gunner shouts drop all engines are throttled back, the planes looses speed and the attacking fighter overshoots, again i agree that this wouldn't always work, but you cannot possibly say that dropping and the corkscrew would never work.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2005)

It would never work Lanc. The fighter pilot would just have to turn around. Do you think the Lanc can outrun a Bf-109 or a Fw-190? Second of all yes it would be a dive in the corkscrew because they would not slowly decend, they would drop.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 29, 2005)

even if the fighter has to turn around and attack it's still worked! 

so come on, let's hear how you think the B-17s would o at night......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2005)

Not really lanc, it would turn around and waste the Lancaster and all the hard (cork)screwing would have been in vain


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 29, 2005)

couldn't resist it could you


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2005)

Lanc its not that hard to understand. Any bomber that does, not just a Lancaster would still get it from the fighter.

I dont think the B-17 would do any different from the Lancaster in night bombing. How would it be any different?


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 29, 2005)

B17's were used for nighttime raids in the PTO, sometimes with great effect.

The only difference between the B17 and lanc operating at night, is the Lanc had a better payload.

One advantage the B17 might have had over the Lanc, is the belly turret could be removed and the hole converted to a tunnel gun setup, to make life a bit more dangerous for the night fighters flying underneath.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2005)

I agree. I dont think the Lanc was good at bombing at night because it was a Lancaster. The B-17 would have done just as good as the Lanc.


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 30, 2005)

Ok if we are going to say that the B-29 was the best, and I will agree it was very good, but that they were able to operate because of the B-24s and B-17s. The b-24 would be the second best. Yes it was a beast to get and maintaine in formation and the wings were thin, but they could cover the attlantic, and were very good in the pacific. I have not read a lot about the Lanc in the PTO if anyone has some information that would be great. The B-17 was pulled out of the Pacific, because it was not as good for the long disttance. 

I think the B-24 and the Lanc are almost tied in being the second best, but they were both a generation away from the b-29 or B-32 and B-36.


----------



## wmaxt (Nov 30, 2005)

I agree the Lanc was striped allowing it to carry more but:

The Lanc has to at least be considered for second because its bombay has the flexability to carry such diverse loads. Sure the B-17 could have carried the same weight loads (normal loads) to the German targets and even managed some of the special bombs (maybe even better than the Lanc in some cases), other loads just plain would not have fit in anything but the Lanc.

The B-24 was capable, had a very long range, flew everywhere and most impotantly was available in large nimbers. It makes for a good debate.

wmaxt


----------



## elmilitaro (Nov 30, 2005)

I'd have to say my tie for first would be between the B-17 and the Lancaster.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 1, 2005)

No I think the B-29 was clearly the best Heavy bomber, if not the best plane of the war. Lancaster just has it for second place for me, closely followed by the B-24 and B-17.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 1, 2005)

i'll conceed the B-29 was better than the lanc, there, i said it, i feel so dirty 

BUT it's important to remember it is a generation ahead of the lanc, the lanc saw longer service and the lanc was the best bomber over europe and at night..........


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 1, 2005)

Although the B32 was only used for a very short time, Id say it was still superior to the Lanc.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 1, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> No I think the B-29 was clearly the best Heavy bomber, if not the best plane of the war. Lancaster just has it for second place for me, closely followed by the B-24 and B-17.



I agree with you, but I dont think the B-29 was the best plane of the war.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 1, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Although the B32 was only used for a very short time, Id say it was still superior to the Lanc.



I agree - it had a lot od potential and could have been a close counterpart to the B-29



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > No I think the B-29 was clearly the best Heavy bomber, if not the best plane of the war. Lancaster just has it for second place for me, closely followed by the B-24 and B-17.
> ...



Agree - again I'll stand behind an earlier statement, the best plane of the war, overall was the C-47. I know some folks would want to see a fighter or bomber, but the C-47s operational record, longevity and capabilities speak for itself....


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 1, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > Although the B32 was only used for a very short time, Id say it was still superior to the Lanc.
> ...


Agreed, well said FBJ.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 1, 2005)

I was talking in terms of sheer technological acheivement, that perhaps the B-29 was, on paper "the best".


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 1, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> I was talking in terms of sheer technological acheivement, that perhaps the B-29 was, on paper "the best".


That maybe but what of some of the German designs on paper and the B-36? They were also good planes on paper.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 1, 2005)

Exactly, but they were "on paper". The Superfortress actually saw good service and proved its worth comfortably.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 1, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Exactly, but they were "on paper". The Superfortress actually saw good service and proved its worth comfortably.


That cannot be argued on, agreed CC.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 1, 2005)

I'm trying to find information the B-29s WW2 combat record, here's information on its Korean War Record...

When the Korean War ended on July 27, 1953, the B-29s had flown over 21,000 sorties, nearly 167,000 tons of bombs had been dropped, and 34 B-29s had been lost in combat (16 to fighters, four to flak, and fourteen to other causes). B-29 gunners had accounted for 34 communist fighters (16 of these being MiG-15s) probably destroyed another 17 (all MiG-15s) and damaged 11 (all MiG-15s). Losses were less than 1 per 1000 sorties.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## evangilder (Dec 1, 2005)

That's a pretty damn good record.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 1, 2005)

evangilder said:


> That's a pretty damn good record.


Agreed, especially as it was against the early jets (Mig-15). I would say that it was a pretty awesome record.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 2, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > Although the B32 was only used for a very short time, Id say it was still superior to the Lanc.
> ...



Agreed 100%.


----------



## blue swede (Dec 6, 2005)

I've always thought the Heinkel 177 Grief was the best overall bomber of ww2.
8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 6, 2005)

any reasons for that? because many, including myself, wouldn't agree........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

blue swede said:


> I've always thought the Heinkel 177 Grief was the best overall bomber of ww2.
> 8)



And how do you come to that conclusion. Please tell me you are kidding! It was not a bad design but the engines were terrible. It was like flying a coffin with the 2 Daimler-Benz DB 610A-1/B-1. The 2 V-12 coupled to each propeller were very unreliable and it would catch fire easily.


----------



## blue swede (Dec 6, 2005)

Well, it could do almost everything better than the Lancaster. It was comparable to the B17 and was better in most catagories to the B24. Okay, I'll admit it wasn't as good as the B29, but it had a different role.
8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 6, 2005)

it had the same role and on paper it may have been better in some respects, but paper doesn't tell you the unreliability of the engines........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 6, 2005)

blue swede said:


> I've always thought the Heinkel 177 Grief was the best overall bomber of ww2.
> 8)



Compared to a B-29?!?!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

blue swede said:


> Well, it could do almost everything better than the Lancaster. It was comparable to the B17 and was better in most catagories to the B24. Okay, I'll admit it wasn't as good as the B29, but it had a different role.
> 8)



You really do not know anything about WW2 Bombers do you? The He-177 better than a Lanc and was comparable to the B-17?

First of all the Lanc is arguably the 2nd best bomber behind the B-29 because overall it was better than the B-17 and the B-24. The He-177 was not even comparable to the B-17.


*Heinkel He-177*

Origin: Ernst Heinkel AG
Sub Contractor: Arado Flugzeugwerke
Type: Six-Seat Heavy Bomber and Missile carrier
Models: A-0 to A-5
First Flight:
V-1: November 19, 1939
A-0: November 1941
Service Delivery:
A-1: March 1942
A-5: February 1943
Engine: 2 Daimler-Benz DB 610A-1/B-1

Note: Each engine comprised of two V12 liquid cooled engines geared to one propeller.

Dimensions: 
Span: 31.44m (103 ft. 1¼ in.)
Length: 22m (72 ft. 2 in.)
Height: 6.4m (21 ft.)

Weights: (A-5)
Empty: 37,038lb. (16,800 kg)
Loaded: 68,343lb (31,000kg)

Performance: 
Maximum (at 41,000lb.): 295mph (472km/h)
Initial Climb: 853 ft/min (260m/min)
Service Ceiling: 26,500 ft (7080m)
Range with Fritz or Hs 293 missle: 3,107 miles (5000km)
Armament: A-5/R2:
One 7.92mm MG 81J manually aimed in nose
Ammunition: 2000 rounds
One 20mm MG 151 manually aimed in forward ventral gondola
Ammunition: 300 rounds
Two 13mm MG 131 in remote front dorsal turret
Ammunition: 750 rounds per gun
One 13mm MG 131 in electric aft dorsal turret
Ammunition: 750 rounds
One 20mm MG 151 cannon in in tail position
Ammunition: 300 rounds

Bomb Load: A-5/R2:
Sixteen 110 lb. (50kg) SC 50, four 551 lb. (250-kg) SC 250 or two 1,102 lb. (500 kg) SC 500, or two LMA III parachute sea mines, LT 50 torpedos, or Hs 293 of FX 1400 missiles. 


Production: 
8 Prototypes
35 He 177A-0 (Mainly Arado built)
130 He 177A-1 (Arado built)
170 He 177A-3 (Heinkel Built)
826 He 177A-5

Comments 
Arguably the largest bomber built by the Germans, the He 177 suffered many flaws and turned into one of the Luftwaffe's biggest failures (when compare service use to the amount of resources invested.) A significant problem that plagued the program from the beginning was a ludicrous requirement that this extremely large aircraft be capable of dive bombing. This combined with the attempt to reduce drag by coupling the engines, while theoretically sound, proved to be impossible in practice for no aircraft in history had engines that would so readily burst into flame. 75% of the prototypes crashed and a good percentage of the 35 A-0 pre-production airframes were written off in crashed or in-flight fires.
About 700 served on the eastern front using 50mm and 75mm guns for tank-busting while a few brave aircrews ineffectually bombed England.
The He 177 proved to be such a big problem that Goering forbid Heinkel to develope a four engine version (though Heinkel did anyways, the result being the He 277).
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he177.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## blue swede (Dec 6, 2005)

Well, I thought I read somewhere that the problems with the engine design have been overblown and that it was more of a maintenance issue. And, with respects, I don't recall the B29 being used as an anti-shipping platform. 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 6, 2005)

whereas the lanc was


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

blue swede said:


> Well, I thought I read somewhere that the problems with the engine design have been overblown and that it was more of a maintenance issue. And, with respects, I don't recall the B29 being used as an anti-shipping platform. 8)



Does that mean the He-177 was a very good anti shipping platform. It does not matter if you can do the mission if your engines blow up before you reach the target. The B-29, Lancaster, B-17, and B-24 were all better bombers than the He-177. They could carry heavier loads and handled better. Now the He-274 and He-277 evolutions of the He-177 may have proven to be good bombers, had they made into production phase.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 6, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> blue swede said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I thought I read somewhere that the problems with the engine design have been overblown and that it was more of a maintenance issue. And, with respects, I don't recall the B29 being used as an anti-shipping platform. 8)
> ...


Agreed Alder, well said. As you said, if they where put into production, which they weren't, so we will never know other than the paper statistics.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

Exactly. The He-177 had pretty good performance for an aircraft her size, but she was just do dangerous.

As for the He-274 we can ask the French they flew it in Dec. 1945.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 6, 2005)

blue swede said:


> Well, I thought I read somewhere that the problems with the engine design have been overblown and that it was more of a maintenance issue. And, with respects, I don't recall the B29 being used as an anti-shipping platform. 8)



It didn't have to be.... 8)

Although it did mine the sh*t out of Tokyo Harbor!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 6, 2005)

blue swede said:


> Well, I thought I read somewhere that the problems with the engine design have been overblown and that it was more of a maintenance issue. And, with respects, I don't recall the B29 being used as an anti-shipping platform. 8)



And I dont recall the He-177 flying at 35,000ft at 350mph with 20,000lbs of bombs for over 7000 miles...Funny isnt it?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

LOL


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 6, 2005)

Here is a little on the He-274. Couldn't find anything about the results of the French tests though.

Type: High Altitude Heavy Bomber
Origin: Ernst Heinkel AG (later assigned to SAUF, Suresnes, France)
Models: V1 and V2
Production: Two prototypes
First Flight: December 1945 by the French

Engine:
Daimler-Benz DB 603A-2 inverted turbocharged V12
Horsepower: 1,850hp
Number: 4

Dimensions:
Wing span: 44.20m (145 ft. 2¼ in.)
Wing Surface Area: N/A
Length: 23.80m (78 ft. 1¼ in.)
Height: 2.10m (6 ft. 10½ in.)
Stabilizer Span: N/A
Weights:
Empty: 21,300kg (46,964 lb.)
Loaded: 38,000kg (83,786 lb.)

Performance:
Maximum Speed (Sea Level): 267 mph
Maximum Speed (11,000m): 360 mph (580 kph)
Cruise Speed: N/A
Range: 4250km (2,640 miles)
Initial Climb: N/A
Endurance: N/A
Service Ceiling: 46,915 ft (14,300m)

Armament:
N/A

Avionics:
N/A

Originally designated He 177 A-4, the He 274 was a high-altitude development of the He 177. Like the He 277, the He 274 dispensed with coupled engines and mounted four single powerplants. While originally considered a version of the He 177, growing incompatability of parts led to the redesignation to He 274 and reassignment of the project to SAUF. French resistance workers conspired to slow down development of the He 274 so that the prototypes were not ready at the time of the German withdrawal in July 1944. The French took possession of the prototypes and redesignated them ASA 01A. The prototypes finally flew in December 1945 with French markings.
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he274.html







Type: Heavy Bomber, Recce and Anti-Shipping Aircraft
Origin: Ernst Heinkel AG
Models: V1 to V3, B-5, B-6 and B-7 Series
Production: N/A
First Flight: Late 1943

Engine:
B-5:
Daimler-Benz DB 603A inverted V12
Horsepower: 1,850hp
Number: 4

B-6:
Jumo 213F
Horsepower: 2,060hp
Number: 4

Dimensions:
Wing span (B-5): 31.44m (103 ft. 1¾ in.)
Wing span (B-6): 40.00m (131 ft. 2¾ in.)
Wing Surface Area: N/A
Length: 22.15m (72 ft. 8 in.)
Height: 6.66m (21 ft. 10½ in.)
Stabilizer Span: N/A
Weights:
Empty (B-5): 21,800kg (48,067 lb.)
Loaded (B-5): 44,490kg (98,096 lb.)

Performance:
Maximum Speed: 354 mph (570 kph)
Cruise Speed: N/A
Range (B-5): 6000km (3,728 miles)
Range (B-6): 7200km (4,474 miles)
Initial Climb: N/A
Endurance: N/A
Service Ceiling: N/A

Armament:
N/A

Avionics:
N/A

An attempt by Heinkel to rectify the problems of the He 177 by mounting four single engines in place of the dual coupled engines, the He 277 was originally met with indifference by Goering. Heinkel was actually banned from developing this aircraft and secretly proceeded by designating it the He 177B. During a meeting with Hitler, Heinkel mentioned the aircraft as a solution to a specification Hitler was making. Hitler ordered the type into production, at which point it reclaimed it's legitimate name of He 277. Numerous prototypes were built but on July 3, 1944 production was halted as the German aviation industry focused on fighter production.
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he277.html)






The only difference I found between the 274 and the 277 was that one was builit in Austria (277) and the other in France.

Other than I think even the 277 and the 274 would not have been as good as the B-29.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

I use the same site there, that you got that info from. Its a pretty good website. I agree that they could have been some damn good bombers (the 274 and 277), however we shall never know.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 6, 2005)

And let's throw the -29 in there...

SPECIFICATIONS 
Span: 141 ft. 3 in. 
Length: 99 ft. 0 in. 
Height: 27 ft. 9 in. 
Weight: 133,500 lbs. max. 
Armament: Eight or ten .50-cal. machine guns in remote controlled turrets plus two .50-cal. machine guns and one 20mm cannon in tail; 20,000 lbs. of bombs 
Engines: Four Wright R-3350s of 2,200 hp. ea. 
Cost: $639,000 
Serial Number: 44-27297 

PERFORMANCE 
Maximum speed: 357 mph. 
Cruising speed: 220 mph. 
Range: 3,700 miles 
Service Ceiling: 33,600 ft.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 6, 2005)

The B29's had very serious engine problems early in its life. At one point, it was so bad, the program was on the verge of cancellation due to the engines having a tendency to overheat and catch fire (plus it was made from magnesium, which was a b***h to machine correctly, and can ignite and burn if overheated).

Eventually the probelms were solved and performed reliably well.

Flyboy made a good comment about the mining operations the B29 performed. The mining of the coastal area's and inland sea of Japan did more to impact the economy of Japan than the firebombing did. At one point, coastal shipping would come to a standstill untill the mines were cleared.

Although the German bombers looked good on paper, they were still a generation behind the allies. In fact, their long range bombers were more on a par with the B24's and Lancs.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

The 29 is undisputadly the best bomber of WW2. I dont know how someone can even compare the He-177 to it.


----------



## blue swede (Dec 6, 2005)

I believe I had earlier acknowledged the B29 capabilities and am not comparing the HE177 to it.
But getting back to the B17, I don't think it was ever used as an anit-tank weapon either. I do seem to remember the Grief used for such a purpose, as well as a bomber, anti-shipping rocket platform and transport.
Funny, isn't it?
8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 6, 2005)

blue swede said:


> But getting back to the B17, I don't think it was ever used as an anit-tank weapon either. 8)



They didn't have to!

When we run this thread it should be titled "The 2nd best bomber of WW2," or the "Best Heavy Bomber of the ETO/ MTO." 8)


----------



## blue swede (Dec 6, 2005)

HE177 stats

1 mph faster than the B17
Same range as the B17.
9,000 feet lower service ceiling.
But 4 less crew.
80% bomb load of the B17.
A little less paper capabilities than the B17, but a little better than the B24.
Range same as B24.
5,000 lb. bomb load more than the B24.
4 less crew.
Same speed as B24.

So, I do think it's as worthy of consideration as these American bombers. 

Otherwise, it's the B29 and nothing else to talk about. 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

blue swede said:


> I believe I had earlier acknowledged the B29 capabilities and am not comparing the HE177 to it.
> But getting back to the B17, I don't think it was ever used as an anit-tank weapon either. I do seem to remember the Grief used for such a purpose, as well as a bomber, anti-shipping rocket platform and transport.
> Funny, isn't it?
> 8)



No but you did say that the He-177 was better than the B-29, so yes we should compare it.

Who cares if the B-17 did not do those missions, even though yes it was used as a Transport (in fact there were versions built as transports). In fact lets look at the roles the B-17 played:

Bomber - Most versions
Search and Rescue - B-17H
Heavy Bomber Escorts - YB-40
VIP Transport - C-108
Transport - CB-17
Guiden Missle/Rocket Platform - QB-17L
Recon - RB-17
Staff Transport - VB-17
Guided Bomb - MQ-17G
Naval Patrol/Anti Ship - PB-1
Photo Recon - F-9
Anti Ship - Fortress MK II/ IIA
Electronic Warfare - Fortress MK III

So as you can see the B-17 could do everything that the He-177 could do except Anti Tank. The real question is was the He-177 very successful as a Tank Killer. I doubt it. I know it sucked as a Dive Bomber (yes Hitler required that it be able to dive bomb and it was not effective as that ).

So where are we going with this?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

blue swede said:


> HE177 stats
> 
> 1 mph faster than the B17
> Same range as the B17.
> ...



Alright lets see 1mph faster. Big deal. Could it fly that speed with a full bomb load? Probably not. 
80% of the bomb load of a B-17? How do you get this figure? The He-177 could carry:
Sixteen 110 lb. (50kg) SC 50 
*or*
our 551 lb. (250-kg) SC 250
*or*
two 1,102 lb. (500 kg) SC 500

That comes out to no more than 2204lb of bombs. That is only about a 4th of the B-17's bomb load and no where near 5000lb more than the B-24. 

And just what are the paper cababilites of the B-17 and the B-24? Can you explain what paper cabalities are?

The B-17 and B-24 were far more capable than the He-177 and the Lancaster was overall better than they were.


----------



## blue swede (Dec 6, 2005)

Okay, I concede. The HE177 doesn't quite match up to the B17 or Lancaster.
And the B29 was the best STRATEGIC bomber of WW2.
8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

Now you are talking. If you had chosen a different bomber to debate it might have been better but the He-177 really is not debatable. History speaks for itself and so does performance.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Dec 8, 2005)

Most of the engine trouble associated with the B-29 was the early carbureted versions. They had fuel distribution problems and some cylinders would be burning fairly lean. This coupled with the tight cowling got things really hot and accounted for plenty of the problems accounted. These early versions also suffered lubrication problems in the cylinder head and through this had cooling problems in that area too. This would lead to a swallowed valve.

Finally oil crossover tubes were used to sufficiently lubricate the valvetrain. Direct fuel injection (fuel was injected directly into the cylinder) solved the fuel distribution problem and a lot of the heating problems.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2005)

Cool, thanks for the info there. Do you know of any problems that occured with the remote control armament systems.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Dec 9, 2005)

I dont really know of many serious problems that plagued the CFC. Most problems I recall hearing about were when tubes would burn out.

One guy Ive talked to a few times who ended up being a part of the 509th CG started his career testing various fire control systems for the B-29. He was involved in the manned turret program, the Sperry hydraulic program and the GE electronic program. He always said that for the remote systems the GE system was far better and more reliable. He said it was also much more accurate even better than manned turrets. The reason being that it could make just about any gunner a pretty good gunner because it would compensate for lead and bullet drop. He said while there were some gunners using flexible guns (like the waist gunner on a B-17) that were very good and pretty accurate, they developed thier talent and as such were not as prevalent. The CFC system on the B-29 eliminated the guesswork, producing a much better gunner.

I explained it one time to someone else that its sorta like antilock brakes. There are good drivers that can brake by feel and can out brake an antilock system. But such drivers are few and far between. Antilock takes the work out of it and helps an average or even crappy driver at least brake better!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2005)

DaveB.inVa said:


> The CFC system on the B-29 eliminated the guesswork, producing a much better gunner.



Yeah I know all about that guess work. It is still what we have to do on our Helicopters.

Thanks for the info by the way.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 9, 2005)

Good info Dave. Thanks for that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 10, 2005)

and i think we're all agreed the lanc's second best yes??


----------



## KraziKanuK (Dec 10, 2005)

Are you saving your pennies Lanc?
http://www.lincsaviation.co.uk/popup.cfm?p_n=48322&p_i=48322
http://www.lincsaviation.co.uk/popup.cfm?p_n=48324&p_i=48324


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 10, 2005)

i wanna wide on the pwane


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 10, 2005)

Thanks for that Dave, I've posted before on the B-29's earlier shortcomings... [met with a hail of flak!]... but that also really clarifies the remote gun system...awesome.

I also thoroughly endorse the Lancaster as 2nd....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 10, 2005)

and of course it was the best at night and over europe


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 10, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and of course it was the best at night and over europe


Agreed, that it was.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 10, 2005)

No way lanc! What about the He-177?!?!


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 10, 2005)

But the Lanc has no record in the PTO. Just because its good flying at night over Europe doesnt mean its good at flying long ranges over the PTO.


----------



## Glider (Dec 10, 2005)

Syscom
With the obvious exception of the B29 no bomber could come close to the payload/range of the Lancaster, you know that as well as the rest of us.
Plus the Jap fighters generally had less firepower than the Germans so our reduced defensive capability wouldn't have been so limiting.

Can I ask why it wouldn't do so well in the PTO?


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 10, 2005)

In the PTO, the B24's were flying 3200 mile missions (round trip). The single pilot design of the Lanc would have reduced the effectiveness of its long range capability due to pilot fatigue.

Plus the Lanc was a sitting duck during daylight. At least the B24's and B17's could attempt some type of defense.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 10, 2005)

well if you're gonna get so hung up on this point, why not just take a second pilot along with you, i fail to see the problem with that?

and so what if it didn't see serivce in the pacific (despite two lancs being sent out for suitability trials and passing with flying colours), the -262 didn't see any service in the pacific, yet it was the best jest fighter of the war (with the possible exception of the meteor, but she never saw service in the PTO either but this's for annother thread), the -152 never saw service in the PTO but it's still on of if not the best high alt. prop. fighter, i fail to see your point?


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 10, 2005)

Glider said:


> Syscom
> With the obvious exception of the B29 no bomber could come close to the payload/range of the Lancaster, you know that as well as the rest of us.
> Plus the Jap fighters generally had less firepower than the Germans so our reduced defensive capability wouldn't have been so limiting.
> 
> Can I ask why it wouldn't do so well in the PTO?



The Lanc was optimized for its mission, as was pointed out in another thread the range and payload differences between the Lanc and the B-17 is less than the additional armor/armment on the B-17 required for daylite operations. The Lancs biggest (only) advantage over the B-17 is its huge and flexible bombay making it able to carry a wider range of munitions and for shorter missions a larger quantity (not necissarily weight) as well.

The PTO was a different situation 
First the priority was Germany.
Second the B-24 was made in greater numbers.
Third the B-24 had a better range
Fourth the B-17 was deemed more robust for the conditions over Germany.

wmaxt


----------



## KraziKanuK (Dec 10, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Plus the Lanc was a sitting duck during daylight. At least the B24's and B17's could attempt some type of defense.


Lancs did day ops in the ETO and lost no more percentage of a/c than did the B-17/B-24.

The hand held guns in the American heavies were spray and prey weapons > pretty well useless. The American heavies had an extra turret but the same number of guns in turrets as the Lanc.

Oh yes, the pilot in the Lanc could be relieved by the flight engineer, navigator or bombadier.

Should it be mentioned that night flying is much harder than day flying? Eight hour missions were common and the pilot did not need a relief pilot to replace him unlike the American heavies.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 10, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > Plus the Lanc was a sitting duck during daylight. At least the B24's and B17's could attempt some type of defense.
> ...



The Lanc lost a higher percentage of aircraft, I want to say twice on a percentage/sortie basis (memory, I don't have the numbers out), over the B-17s even with the Lanc flying at night.

A major mission, in tight formation, for 8 or more hours where you can see your enemy and cannot counter (AAA), can be just as bad. The early missions where esp stressful, you knew hundreds of fighters were waiting just for you and you didn't even have the dark to hide in. BTW those fighters got 2 or sometimes 3 runs at you.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 10, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > Plus the Lanc was a sitting duck during daylight. At least the B24's and B17's could attempt some type of defense.
> ...



That's hogwash that the Lancaster would of been a sitting duck in the Pacific. It would of done just as well if not better than the main staple heavy bomber in the PTO, the B-24 (The B-29 was actually labeled "extra heavy")

The advantage of an extra pilot focuses around a concept called cockpit resource management (it actually existed back then but no one had a name for it). It is where the crew in the cockpit worked as a team and shared the workload during the flight process. The Lanc with one set of controls did not have that luxury. Although an FE or Naviguesser could relieve the pilot in the Lanc, its the critical time (during the bomb run, while under attack, flying and landing in the soup) where the extra crew member pays off. That's the only negative I've ever seen with the Lanc, aside from that I think she would of done very well in the PTO.

Night operations were more hazardous, but not by much, sometimes a night with a full moon lends itself better for identifying landmarks than during the day. The real hazard existed when operating in the soup and attempting to land with visibility under 3 miles, that's when an extra hand in the cockpit may save the life of the entire crew.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 10, 2005)

> The Lancs biggest (only) advantage over the B-17 is its huge and flexible bombay making it able to carry a wider range of munitions and for shorter missions a larger quantity (not necissarily weight) as well.



you think the larger quantities was only for shorter missions, ok then, how far could the B-17 carry a grand slam, oh yeah, that's right it couldn't, you may also wish to revise you list of advantages the lanc has over the B-17............



> Second the B-24 was made in greater numbers.



yes by a country with far greater production capabilities, britain produced only a handfull of planes in numbers greater than 5,000, the lanc is one of these..............



> Third the B-24 had a better range



with what payload, i'm not saying you're wrong, i just wanna see figures..........



> Fourth the B-17 was deemed more robust for the conditions over Germany.



by who?? was there some great Anglo-american bomber robustness report i've missed in which the USAAF and the RAF both agreed this? i don't believe so, i think what you meant was the USAAF deemed it more robust for daylight operations.......... 



> The Lanc lost a higher percentage of aircraft, I want to say twice on a percentage/sortie basis (memory, I don't have the numbers out), over the B-17s even with the Lanc flying at night.


 
twice? don't be rediculous..............

from figures adler posted a long way back-

B-17 sorties= 291,508 for losses of 4,688, this gives a sortie/loos percentage of around 1.6

lanc sorties= 156,308 for losses of around 3,498 giving a sortie/loss ration of about 2.2, higher, yes, but hardly twice 

now then, let's look at the ammounts carried per sortie shall we! this could be fun...........

my calculations (it is late now so i'm hoping to nip off to bed soon, however i shall be more than willing to post the figures tomorrow) show that the B-17 carried no more than 2.92 tons per sortie, wheras the lanc carried ATLEAST 4.5 tons per sortie, the actual number would infact be higher...........

and don't get me started on tonnage per aircraft lost............



> A major mission, in tight formation, for 8 or more hours where you can see your enemy and cannot counter (AAA), can be just as bad. The early missions where esp stressful, you knew hundreds of fighters were waiting just for you and you didn't even have the dark to hide in. BTW those fighters got 2 or sometimes 3 runs at you.



what about 8 hours in sometimes pitch black, trying to find your way only with a map, a compas, a clock and some simple navigation aids? where you, at times, don't even know your enemy's there till he's shooting at you? where you loose formations mean every man for himself and you're up against radar guided night fighters with huge 30mm cannon?? doesn't exactily sound like a walk in the park, although quite what this has to do with the aircrafts abilities i don't know!


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 10, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Lancs did day ops in the ETO and lost no more percentage of a/c than did the B-17/B-24.



Not entirely true. Lancs only operated during the daylight when absolute air supremecy was assured.



KraziKanuK said:


> The hand held guns in the American heavies were spray and prey weapons > pretty well useless. The American heavies had an extra turret but the same number of guns in turrets as the Lanc.



In the PTO, most B17's and B24's had the belly turret removed and a tunnel gun setup was used. That still left six defensive positions, all with .50 cals. The Lanc only had .303's in three or four defensive positions.



KraziKanuK said:


> Oh yes, the pilot in the Lanc could be relieved by the flight engineer, navigator or bombadier.



In the very long range missions in the PTO, the navigator and flight engineer would be quite busy themselves and wouldnt have time to relieve the pilot. You could say the bombardier could be the relief, but in fact, a pilot is a pilot, a bombardier is a bombardier.Perhaps for short periods, but not for extended time.



KraziKanuK said:


> Should it be mentioned that night flying is much harder than day flying? Eight hour missions were common and the pilot did not need a relief pilot to replace him unlike the American heavies.



The US missions in the PTO were frequently done at night and were easily 15-16 hours in length. In the famous Balikpapin raids in 1943, the 380th BG flew from Darwin in late afternoon, hitting the refineries after midnight and arrived back at base after sunrise. Plus they had to penetrate a few weather fronts while doing it.


----------



## Glider (Dec 10, 2005)

B17's and B24's could also only operate in daylight with air supremacy unless they wanted to take extreme losses. The level of support given to Lancaster's ad Halifax's in daylight was the same as that given to the American Planes flying similar missions. We just carried a lot more bombs for the given range than the B17.

Don't right off the defensive weapons carried by the Lancaster's. I have recently finished reading 'Conflict over the Bay' and was surprised how many times the A/S aircraft got away and/or shot down one of the attacking German Ju88 Fighters, despite being alone and outnumbered 6-8 to 1. They would have been better off with HMG's of course but don't right off the guns they had. Obviously these were not Lancaster's but were Halifax's, Whitleys and Wellingtons with similar defensive weapons.

Taking over and assisting the pilot isn't difficult and it isn't the period of time that counts, its what your doing. Landing and taking off were of course the prerogative of the Pilot but cruising is a task that can be shared. It was normal practice in Coastal Command to teach all crew members how to do all the jobs to relieve boredom and help in a crisis. I don't see why Bomber Command would do differently.

An aside. During the filming of the Dam Busters the actors were told how to start up the engines of the Lanc and and start to taxi the plane. When they got a distance from the camera a real pilot would take over for the take off. On one occasion the folding seat that RAF pilot used collapsed during the take off and the actor had to get it off the ground and circle while the Pilot could get up and take over.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 10, 2005)

Glider said:


> B17's and B24's could also only operate in daylight with air supremacy unless they wanted to take extreme losses. The level of support given to Lancaster's ad Halifax's in daylight was the same as that given to the American Planes flying similar missions. We just carried a lot more bombs for the given range than the B17.
> 
> Don't right off the defensive weapons carried by the Lancaster's. I have recently finished reading 'Conflict over the Bay' and was surprised how many times the A/S aircraft got away and/or shot down one of the attacking German Ju88 Fighters, despite being alone and outnumbered 6-8 to 1. They would have been better off with HMG's of course but don't right off the guns they had. Obviously these were not Lancaster's but were Halifax's, Whitleys and Wellingtons with similar defensive weapons.
> 
> ...


Agreed Glider. Both the B-17's and B-24's of the USAAF and Lanc needed fighter cover in order to complete the mission with 'acceptable' losses. Even then there were times when the USAAF heavies where attacked en masse and suffered heavy casualties despite the fighter cover. The Lanc required the same conditions to survive in daylight as the USAAF heavies, it is just that the US choose to fly them during the day and the RAF chose to fly them at night. Later in the war some Lancs where fitted with 50cal turrets so their defensive armament was being increased. I see now reason why the Lanc would not of done as well as the B-24 in the Pacific.

Interesting aside on the filming of the Dambusters Glider I didn't know that. How did the actors fare when having to take off?


----------



## Glider (Dec 10, 2005)

The description given during a chat show was that he staggered into the air. The seat collapsed with the aircraft going down the runway at some speed and he simply kept it going until he could lift it off. They had been briefed on what to do in case of emergency and had been through a number of takeoffs but it was stiff drinks all round that night. Trying to remember which actor it was.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 10, 2005)

Glider said:


> The description given during a chat show was that he staggered into the air. The seat collapsed with the aircraft going down the runway at some speed and he simply kept it going until he could lift it off. They had been briefed on what to do in case of emergency and had been through a number of takeoffs but it was stiff drinks all round that night. Trying to remember which actor it was.


Thanks for the info Glider, not exactly a textbook take off then, still it is something to say you have done, take off in lanc whilst piloting it. 8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 10, 2005)

Great info Glider!

The psychological benefits of having another pilot (co-pilot) is immense, but my hats off to the many Lanc pilots (some Sergent pilots) who performed with professionalism and gallantry...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 10, 2005)

Here, here.

Good post, Glider.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 10, 2005)

When the B17's and B24's were attacked by the German fighters that had penetrated the escorts, quite a few were shot down. But then quite a few German aircraft were also shot down in return.

Quite simply the Lanc could not defend itself duing the daytime. It was a nighttime bomber, which it performed well.

In the PTO, the Japanese fighters were still deadly and the ability of the B24's to shoot back at them effectively is what brought many a bomber crew home. The Lanc shooting at them with .303's was not going to cut it.

Another factor on why the Lanc would not have survived long in the PTO in 1943 and 1944, was those liquid cooled Merlins. A slight coolent leak from any cause would be a critical issue, because of the distances involved.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 11, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> In the PTO, the Japanese fighters were still deadly and the ability of the B24's to shoot back at them effectively is what brought many a bomber crew home. The Lanc shooting at them with .303's was not going to cut it.


Here I disagree - the Japanese, although aggressive were no where close to the aggressiveness and the tactics of the German Fighter command in intercepting bombers. Even throwing Kamikaze into the fray compared to the Germans they sucked!!! If the Japanese had the capability and tactics that even came close to the Germans the 20th and 21st bomber command would of lost twice as many aircraft as they did !!


syscom3 said:


> Another factor on why the Lanc would not have survived long in the PTO in 1943 and 1944, was those liquid cooled Merlins. A slight coolant leak from any cause would be a critical issue, because of the distances involved.



Now there you have a point - to use a Lanc the way Lemay did to firebomb Tokyo would of been a nerve racking situation based on the glycol system of the Lanc - but at 20 or 30,000 feet I don't think it would of made a difference,


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 11, 2005)

but remember the merlin was one of the most reliable engines of the war, and the lanc could always fly on 3 engines................

and lanc pilots didn't have any problems on their own over Europe for extended missions, and if nessisary i fail to see the problem with taking along an extra pilot???

may i also compliment you on the way you avoided the points made in my earlier post, i posted that late last night when i could've been in bed, but insted i stayed up to write that, then you go and ignore it, i have an urge to continue to repost it until you acknowledge it 



> Quite simply the Lanc could not defend itself duing the daytime



nor could a B-17, a B-24 or most over bombers for that matter, most unescorted bombers will be dead meat against decent opposition during the day, and give me a load of crap about how the extra guns on the b-17 gave it a better chance, it may be true that it will have a better chance but that's like saying you stand a better chance of living if you're shot in the head than if your body is savagely chopped into peices, either way you're gonna die, the USAAF proved that if unescorted daylight raids will be desasters...........



> The Lanc shooting at them with .303's was not going to cut it



they're japaneese planes, they're not heavily armed and armoured german interceptors, 4x .303 throwing out a few thousand rounds per minute will do very nicely thanks, it doesn't take much to bring one down and they're gonna have to get in quite close to make their pea shooters effective..............

and, just to clarify, what exactily are you arguing here?? are you doubting the lanc was the second best heavy of the war because it has no record in the pacific?? or just that you think the lanc couldn't operate in the pacific??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> KraziKanuK said:
> 
> 
> > syscom3 said:
> ...



And today we call it Crew Coordination and it has saved many lives including myself and the rest of my crew.

Good post FBJ. 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 11, 2005)

sure, no one nice posts me


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2005)

Good post up there Lanc.....

Feel better now.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 11, 2005)

Lanc, The Lanc was a great plane and it derserves its accolades but the fact is that the Lanc was optimized for its role as was the B-17. The B-17 by virtue of its armor and aircooled engines was less vuneralbe than a Lanc durring the day. The Memphis Bell went through 9 engines, that they were hit often is not in question. Had their rolls been reversed, so to would theircapabilities and statistics reflect it.

The two planes have essentialy the same minimum and gross weights. The bomb capacity of the B-17 was similar and limited by the capacity of the bombay not the weight it could carry. 

But I do have to add two advantages the Lanc had over the B-17, first the willingness to exploit that big bombay by using bombs like the Grand Slam, and the bouncing bomb for the dams. Second the British attitude that a single pilot and a 30% (your right. not twice) greater loss rate at night was acceptable.

The arguments that refer to tonns dropped etc are white wash depending on mission set up (daylite/night) to justify an argument - again had the mission been reversed so to would the statistics.

The statement that the B-17 loss rate was entirely due to escorts is very simplistic. I must remind you that the first third of the daylite bombing was without fighter cover, the next 1/3 was with inadequate fighter cover, 1 to 3 FG to cover both the trip in and the trip out, 150 fighters max, for 500 to 800 bombers, and finaly adequate fighter cover for the last third of the bombing missions. 

The Lancaster was a fine aircraft and did its job extreamly well for that time and place but so was the B-17 and their capabilities were very close just mission oriented. I think the Lanc is still the second behind only the B-29 but its the bombay and British stoicism that makes the difference.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2005)

Also good post. I pretty much agree with you on this one.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2005)

but most of the points you make are like saying if the Queen had balls she'd be the King (sorry if that was disshonerable M'am) facts are facts, you can say if as much as you like, you can't prove it and as such is just speculation............

although you did, in a round about way, agree that the lanc was the second best bomber, and you used some big words i don't understand so i'm willing to leave it here, unless there's anyone else that would like to fight for the B-17


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2005)

Well here is my take on the subject. I will go ahead and say that the Lancaster was the 2nd best bomber of WW2 however all three that one could argue for the spot, ie. Lancaster, B-17, or B-24 all had there distint advantages and disadvantages and either one would be better than the others when used in certain situations.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2005)

that's true, but that's true of anything, it could be argued that in some ways the lanc and possibly B-17 were better than the B-29 in some respects..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2005)

That I seriously doubt however.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2005)

it's true though, it's really annoying me people saying it all depends on mission profile or circumstances, you've said you think the lanc's second, don't go and say but any of the planes could be second depending on........ i mean if the mission profile required a bomb 33 ft long to be carried the lanc would be the best bomber, if an un-pressurised plane with a crew of over 10 then the B-17 would be the best, we're trying to compile a generic list here, just make a list!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2005)

Exactly. If the profile called for a 2 seat open canopy biplane for a long range grand slam dropping then the Tiger Moth is best 

Its which plane is more adaptive to any singular role at any one time, IMO.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2005)

most adaptive? well the lanc walks away with that one..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2005)

I agree...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2005)

wow, i really didn't expect you to say that


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2005)

Why not?  Only a fool would argue against it. Unless we talk about the P-38 and Mossie but they arent long range heavies.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 13, 2005)

I agree also Lanc, the Lanc was very adaptable which is why it was used to carry out the Dambusters raid, Tirpitz raid and use the Grand Slam and Tall Boy bombs.


----------



## crowdpleaser (Dec 13, 2005)

well i argee that the lanc could carry massive loads but it was very vulnerable bcause it didnt had a belly turret (bottom) and the germans pilots took out a lot of lanc bcause they got a great shot at the bottom of the belly

so i think it isnt the lancaster,

i think ill go for the heinkel he 111 h3


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 13, 2005)

crowdpleaser said:


> i think ill go for the heinkel he 111 h3



As the 2nd best behind the B-29, right?!?


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 13, 2005)

I think you'll find she was abit of a wheelbarrow by comparison, sport.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 13, 2005)

and i wouldn't even class her as a heavy bomber


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 13, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and i wouldn't even class her as a heavy bomber



In certain situations maybe a "Heavy Target."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 13, 2005)

crowdpleaser said:


> well i argee that the lanc could carry massive loads but it was very vulnerable bcause it didnt had a belly turret (bottom) and the germans pilots took out a lot of lanc bcause they got a great shot at the bottom of the belly
> 
> so i think it isnt the lancaster,
> 
> i think ill go for the heinkel he 111 h3



You are kidding right? The He-111 as 2nd best and better than the Lancaster, B-17 and B-24?    

The He-111 was not even a heavy bomber, while she could do many versatile things, she was more vulnerable than the Lancaster. The Ju-88 was a much better bomber than the He-111 and it is not even 2nd best.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 14, 2005)

so we're agreed on this so far-

1) B-29
2) Lancaster

?? 

right then, let the arguments for 3rd place begin!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 14, 2005)

3 - 17
4 - 24
5 - Halifax


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 14, 2005)

what's wrong with the halibag?


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 14, 2005)

That would be my top 5 as well FBJ:
1) B-29
2) Lanc
3) B-17
4) B-24
5) Halifax

What is wrong with the Halifax lanc is that is not as good as B-17 or -24 in my opinion anyway...


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 14, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> so we're agreed on this so far-
> 
> 1) B-29
> 2) Lancaster
> ...



Not so fast, im still undecided on #2. Im still not convinced from your arguments that the Lancaster could have successfully served in the PTO like the B24 did.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Dec 14, 2005)

The Hallifax was almost as good as the Lancaster so it has to be ahead of the B-17 and B-24.

Why no He177 in the list?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 14, 2005)

No He-177? To be blunt, it was shit...


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 14, 2005)

It was almost French is it shitness...


----------



## KraziKanuK (Dec 14, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> No He-177? To be blunt, it was sh*t...



Why do you say that?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 14, 2005)

The engines kept catching fire due to their unsuccessful layout, the payload was ok but not amazing, and it was required to do all sorts of ridiculous roles that it was clearly not capale of doing, ie dive bombing...

We discussed this earlier somewhere, the He-274 and -277 may have been contenders if they actually saw service, alas they didnt...

As far as im concered, I can only place the He-177 on a par with the similarly ill fated Manchester...It doesnt deserve a place amongst the elites of B-29's, Lancasters, B-17's and B-24's...


----------



## KraziKanuK (Dec 14, 2005)

So did the B-29s engine like to catch fire.

Beginning with the A-3 and the use of DB610 engines, the fires disappeared. A bomb load of 7,200 kg /15,900 lb is not very much I agree.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 14, 2005)

The B29 engine fire problem was a development problem that was solved.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 14, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > so we're agreed on this so far-
> ...



well the british sent two lancs out to south east asia to see how the lanc performed out there and they found it to be no different from Europe, and so what if it didn't see service out there, the B-29 didn't see service over Europe (well ok one did, but only for PRU) but it's still the best bomber of the war??


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 14, 2005)

The B29 was magnitudes better than the other three bombers.

the Lanc looked like it could handle operations in the PTO, bit it didnt fight in the conditions that the 5th/13th/7th air forces fought in.
As Ive mentioned, having a single pilot, liquid cooled engines and lack of defensive weapons might have had an impact on operations.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 14, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> The engines kept catching fire due to their unsuccessful layout, the payload was ok but not amazing, and it was required to do all sorts of ridiculous roles that it was clearly not capale of doing, ie dive bombing...
> 
> We discussed this earlier somewhere, the He-274 and -277 may have been contenders if they actually saw service, alas they didnt...
> 
> As far as im concered, I can only place the He-177 on a par with the similarly ill fated Manchester...It doesnt deserve a place amongst the elites of B-29's, Lancasters, B-17's and B-24's...



The He-177 also had a dive-bombing role. I'd like to see the wing attach bolts on that pig after a couple of hundred hours, if it makes it that long...

I don't care who designs it, how it's built, who flies it - taking large multi-engine aircraft and subjecting it to heavy loads (like dive bombing) is an accident waiting to happen....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 14, 2005)

sys what is you obsession with the fact that it didn't serve in the PTO?? german planes didn't see service in the PTO, does that make them all bad too? whereas the buffalo saw service in tons of places, that must mean it's better than the german planes, they only flew over Europe and africa.........

and what's wrong with taking an extra pilot if you wanna keep on and on giving the same argument??


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 14, 2005)

We are talking about bombers, not fighters. Plus it was the unique operational requirements for bombers to go on very long range missions in the region. The usual ranges were between 700-800 miles in distance. It was a far different enviornment than Europe.

I suspect that the Lanc pilots would not be able to handle the long ranges required every mission, but also the liquid cooled Merlins would not be able to handle the inevitable damage from Japanese AA and stay running for the time it took to get back to base.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 14, 2005)

The Lanc wasnt designed for use in the PTO. It was designed as a European night bomber, which it performed amazingly well at. If they wanted to design a bomber for the PTO, which at the time was pointless as there was no war in the PTO at that time, then they would have equipped it to be able to do so.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 14, 2005)

It only needed a couple of modifications to be able to do it. If that happened, I suspect the Lanc would have been the superior bomber of the PTO.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Dec 14, 2005)

Why do people think vertical dives when they see the word dive bombing?
The max dive angle of the He177 was 40 deg. Even PF Lancs marked targets diving at this angle.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 14, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Why do people think vertical dives when they see the word dive bombing?
> The max dive angle of the He177 was 40 deg. Even PF Lancs marked targets diving at this angle.



Aerobatic maneuvers are considered any maneuver in excess of 30 degrees pitch nose up or down, and in excess of 60 degrees bank angle. Continual maneuvers as such combined with even limited g loading (+3.5, -1.5) on a large multi engine aircraft is a destiny with doom.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Dec 14, 2005)

I would have to say the B-29 was the all around best bomber of any of those listed. The lancaster was a good bomber, but i just dont think it could have held its own against the japanese AA, and later war interceptors when the escorts were not there or tied up. The inline engines i believe would have been the main shortcoming, because it had a good bombload and range and defensive armament, minus the ball turret which i would want in a bomber.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > so we're agreed on this so far-
> ...



And why do you not think that it would be successful in the PTO?


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 16, 2005)

The lack of heavy MG for defensive purposes and the lack of a second pilot for long range missions.

At the Chino 2005 airshow, I talked with a 5th BG copilot who flew in late 1944 and early 1945. He told me the really long missions were hard on both the pilot and copilot. When there was inclimate weather, which happens quite a bit during the monsoon season, both of them had to be at the controls for the whole flight.

I simply do not think the Lanc would have held up with a single pilot and the lack of defensive firepower.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2005)

Could have put another pilot in there or modified it. They also could have put more defensive armament on it. If you remember the original B-17 did not have that great of a defensive armament either.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 16, 2005)

I see no reason why the Lanc would not be successful in the Pacific. Any problems encountered would be fixed, and if needs be defensive armament could be increased and a second pilot added to relieve the first as well to help him to his job. Engine wise while the glycol cooled Merlins would have been a problem if damage was taken, I see no reason why this would of affected its service in the Pacific. Merlins were one of the most reliable engines of the war, I have heard no adverse stories of their use in the Pacific (in the Hurricanes, Spitfires and P-51s that served there), yes the are single engined fighters but the P-51 in particular was undertaking long range escort missions and I've nothing about problems with the Merlin. I believe also that the even if damage to the engines was sustained, the Lanc would make it home. I think I remember correctly Lanc said that it could fly on one engine. I will admit that it would not be ideal but if it gets you home it gets you home. In my opino the Lanc is the second best bomber of the war, closely followed by the B-17 and the B-24.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2005)

Agreed I dont see why it would not have been decent in the Pacific. There is no reason why you cant put a second pilot if that is your main argument.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 16, 2005)

Gnomey said:


> I see no reason why the Lanc would not be successful in the Pacific. Any problems encountered would be fixed, and if needs be defensive armament could be increased and a second pilot added to relieve the first as well to help him to his job. Engine wise while the glycol cooled Merlins would have been a problem if damage was taken, I see no reason why this would of affected its service in the Pacific. Merlins were one of the most reliable engines of the war, I have heard no adverse stories of their use in the Pacific (in the Hurricanes, Spitfires and P-51s that served there), yes the are single engined fighters but the P-51 in particular was undertaking long range escort missions and I've nothing about problems with the Merlin. I believe also that the even if damage to the engines was sustained, the Lanc would make it home. I think I remember correctly Lanc said that it could fly on one engine. I will admit that it would not be ideal but if it gets you home it gets you home. In my opino the Lanc is the second best bomber of the war, closely followed by the B-17 and the B-24.



While there were serious problems with the Merlin in the early P-51s and the Merlin always had plug fowling problems (at least in the Mustang) It could and did long missions in the PTO.

The lanc could have had a second pilot position and upgraded armamment/armor and been successful in the Pacific. It would have dropped the bomb load as the extra weight did in the B-17 but it could have done the job to. I agree, It would still be the second best bomber (or if you will the best "Heavy Bomber" with the B-29 as the best "Extra Heavy Bomber" ) with the B-17 and B-24 closely following it.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2005)

Well said there.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 16, 2005)

Good post wmaxt.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 16, 2005)

Gnomey said:


> Good post wmaxt.


Yes, and you too Gnomey.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 16, 2005)

I agree that if the Lanc had the modifications, it would have easily been the best bomber of the PTO. But it didnt.

Since it never was deployed in the SW Pacific where all the action was, we will really never know. In 1945, the Aussies had the option of forming a heavy bomber group with B24's or Lancs, and they chose the B24's. It was the same in CBI. B24's were used and not Lancs.

Because the B24 fought in every theater we know its performance.

For this reason, I choose the B24 and not the Lanc.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 17, 2005)

you're choosing the B-24 over the lanc as second best? i can see the reasoning for that however i think the acchievements if the lanc, it's versatility (something that, so, far, has been very much overlooked in this disscussion) more than make up for the fact it "only" saw service over Europe..........


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 17, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> you're choosing the B-24 over the lanc as second best? i can see the reasoning for that however i think the acchievements if the lanc, it's versatility (something that, so, far, has been very much overlooked in this disscussion) more than make up for the fact it "only" saw service over Europe..........



Actualy Lanc, the Lancaster's versaltility (large flexible bombay), and the Brits willingness to use it creatively, is what gives it the edge. Beyond that versality, the only thing that sets it apart from the B-17 is mission profile/set-up. 

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 17, 2005)

The operational parameters in the PTO were far different than the ETO.

As I've said, on the long range missions, the Lancs reliance on one pilot and liquid cooled engines was recipie for sub standard performance.

Versatility means nothing if it cant operate effectively in a similar enviornment like the B24 did.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 17, 2005)

You know, I still can't see what the big, big deal is about the liquid cooled Merlins. Sure, they weren't as robust as any radial, but let's not get too foolish about it. If it _did_ become so very bad for them in the Pacific, I'm sure that Hercules powered Lancs could be whipped up for the Pacific Theatre without too much trouble.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 17, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> You know, I still can't see what the big, big deal is about the liquid cooled Merlins. Sure, they weren't as robust as any radial, but let's not get too foolish about it. If it _did_ become so very bad for them in the Pacific, I'm sure that Hercules powered Lancs could be whipped up for the Pacific Theatre without too much trouble.


Exactly NS, if the Lancs were not performing satifactorly then they would of been modified to improve their performance. If this meant replacing the Merlins with Hercules's so be it, it would have been done. Add the provision for a second pilot and heavier defensive armament and the Lanc is going to do every bit as well as the B-24 and B-17 did in the Pacific if not better that is for sure.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 17, 2005)

I have always maintained that a Lanc with two pilots and heavier defensive firepower would have made it a great bomber for the PTO. Equiping it with air cooled radials would have been a bonus.

But the fact remains that it wasnt done, thus we have to look at what models did exist.

The ranges and potential weather conditions in the PTO required two pilots. The long ranges also required heavier defensive firepower as fighter escort was always problematic.

Battle damage to the aircraft was always a possibility and liquid cooled engines had a distinct disadvantage compared to radials, especially when they would have to run for several hours on the return trip back to base.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 17, 2005)

True enough, but you just said it yourself: It wasn't done. If it _had_ been done, don't you think that the British and Commonwealth air forces could have made modifications accordingly if necessary?


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 17, 2005)

I have no answer why the modifications were not made. In hindsight, everything is 20/20 vision.

So I am maintaining that given what was available in 1943 and 1944, All the "plus's" that the Lanc had was offset by minus's in the PTO.

You might say that the B24 was average, but at least it was consistantly average in all theaters. (sort of like budweiser beer, hehehehehehe)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 17, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> I have no answer why the modifications were not made.


I wasn't referring to the RAAF specifically. I'm talking about large-scale Commonwealth bomber involvement in the PTO. That includes Great Britain, New Zealand, and Canada as well. It's all strictly hypothetical of course, but if it had become longer term for them in the Pacific Theatre it may well have happened quite easily. I see no reason why it couldn't have been pulled off successfully with the Lancaster.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 18, 2005)

well why not considder the use of the Mk.II in the PTO if you're gonna get so hung up on the fact it's got liquid cooled engines?? and i fail to see how taking along a second pilot is such a big deal, they even did it over Europe some times, watch, it's this simple 

Sqn Ldr.- alright Harris, you've been assigned as my second dickie for tonight's op.

Flt. Lt.- alreet sir, i canne weet (he's scottish )

see, the modification consists of 2 lines of speech and you have a second pilot! 

and if you want to see how she's react to different conditions, look at the countries served in post war, scorchingly hot Australia, freezing cold Canada, France, with, well, the french , sweeden with all the cheese and the mountains, Egypt with all that sand and Argentina with all them harriers flying around  on top of that the RAF used them over Africa where they performed without problems, similarly in India and then there's the lancaster's use in civilian use, she was happily flying all around the world! and the merlin's use in adverse weather was further proved in the use of the lancastrain and York..............


----------



## plan_D (Dec 18, 2005)

So lanc, what you're saying is; "Shut the f*ck up. The Lancaster could do it, alright!?" ?


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 18, 2005)

plan_D said:


> So lanc, what you're saying is; "Shut the f*ck up. The Lancaster could do it, alright!?" ?


Pretty much and I for one agree with him.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> I agree that if the Lanc had the modifications, it would have easily been the best bomber of the PTO. But it didnt.



2nd best, it still had to compete with the B-29 which was the best all around strategic bomber of WW2.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2005)

Sweden? Cheese and Mountains? Dont you mean Switzerland?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 18, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> Flt. Lt.- alreet sir, i canne weet (he's scottish )


Nice.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2005)

LOL


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2005)

so are we all agreed now that the Lanc was the second best 4-engined heavy bomber of the war, behind the B-29?? 

let the battle for 3rd begin!


----------



## Magister (Dec 19, 2005)

I know that if given the option, I'd rather be in a Flying Fortress than a Lancaster if under attack from German fighters.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2005)

and i'm equally sure that people on the ground would rather be attacked by the B-17's small payload than the lanc's large one  although i'm sure there'd further prefer not to be under attack at all


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 19, 2005)

Not so fast.

I've been reading some pilot accounts of the really long range missions the B24's went on and I am now convinced that the Lanc as used in the ETO would not have lasted in the PTO.

Some of the missions the B24's went on were 15 hours in length. There is no way a single pilot in the Lanc could have handled that alone, especially if the plane was going to fly through inclimate weather where two pilots were needed to keep control of the bomber.

Plus, like I said, the lack of heavy MG meant the Lanc was going to quite vulnerable to Japanese fighters. 

And the liquid cooled engines were also vulnerable. A small coolant leak caused by flak on a 3 hour flight might be tolerable to get the plane back to England. But any coolant leak on a flight of 8 hours, over jungle and ocean, is flirting with disaster.

Untill you disprove my assertions about these issues, I am going to say the B24 was the 2nd best bomber simply cause it flew in all theaters and we know what it could do. The Lancs performance in the SW pacific is a big unknown.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2005)

hey now wait a minute, did you not read where i posted where the lancs flew? i can assure you they flew all around the world without problems and the merlin proved itself as one of the most if not the most reliable inlines of the war, i think you're exaggerating the vunerability of the inline, remember the radial's not invincible either! 

plus, if it's such a big deal what's wrong with using the Mk.II, some nice beefy radials there to shut you up! 

and about the single pilot "issue", i've said this over and over again, but you obviously keep missing it, so

WHAT IS WRONG WITH TAKING ALONG AN EXTRA PILOT?

and we're talking about japaneese planes here, their armourment was often no more that little pea shooters, she could defend herself in Europe against huge combinations of 2030mm, i think she's manage over japan........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 19, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> hey now wait a minute, did you not read where i posted where the lancs flew? i can assure you they flew all around the world without problems and the merlin proved itself as one of the most if not the most reliable inlines of the war, i think you're exaggerating the vunerability of the inline, remember the radial's not invincible either!
> 
> plus, if it's such a big deal what's wrong with using the Mk.II, some nice beefy radials there to shut you up!
> 
> ...



Nothing - the problem lies with a single pilot multi engine aircraft is during critical flight times, takeoff, landing, duirng the bomb run, flying into flak, under fighter attack, and during instrument operations. Actually I think the most dangreous mode would be while flying in the soup. That's the time where a co-pilot with another set of controls can make the differance between life and death...

I think there would of been many more Lancasters returning from combat had the aircraft been configured with a dedicated 2 man flight crew, however that does not take way the effectiveness and greatness of this aircraft....(it that good Lanc ? )


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2005)

> the problem lies with a single pilot multi engine aircraft is during critical flight times, takeoff, landing, duirng the bomb run, flying into flak, under fighter attack, and during instrument operations



well they managed it fine over europe??


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 19, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> hey now wait a minute, did you not read where i posted where the lancs flew? i can assure you they flew all around the world without problems



Lancs did not fly in the Central Pacific and SW Pacific. There is no combat record of them flying in these regions in 1943 and 1944 (and 1945 for the PI)



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and the merlin proved itself as one of the most if not the most reliable inlines of the war, i think you're exaggerating the vunerability of the inline, remember the radial's not invincible either!



Radials dont have a coolant system. I dont care whether its an Allison, a Merlin, or whatever, if a flak fragment or a bullet puts a hole in the cooling system, its eventually going to empty out. And being 1000 miles from the nearest airfield, with nothing but jungle and ocean below you and an engine that is GOING to eventually fail, is not something thats desireable.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> plus, if it's such a big deal what's wrong with using the Mk.II, some nice beefy radials there to shut you up!



We are talking about what was deployed, not with a hypothetical modification.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and about the single pilot "issue", i've said this over and over again, but you obviously keep missing it, so
> 
> WHAT IS WRONG WITH TAKING ALONG AN EXTRA PILOT?



Having two pilots in the cockpit to handle a heavily loaded bomber flying through a thunderstorm is not only desireable, its mandantory. Having a pilot at the controls during a bomb run when the pilot is incapacitated is not only desirable, but it should be mandantory. It would be a shame to send an aircrew on a mission 1300 miles away, only to fail to drop their bombs because the pilot had his arms shot off and there was noone else at the controls to fly the plane to complete the bomb run.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and we're talking about japaneese planes here, their armourment was often no more that little pea shooters, she could defend herself in Europe against huge combinations of 2030mm, i think she's manage over japan.



While the Japanese fighters were not as capable as the German types, they still had the capability to shoot down allied bombers. NEVER under estimate them. You seem to think that all Japanese fighters were of the "Oscar" type with only two light MG. Well, as the war progressed, more capable types did get deployed and they did shoot down bombers.

Also remember, what can be considered light damage on a short range mission, could easily become critical damage after several hours. An example of this was descibed by the author of the book "Morotai". He was a 307th BG pilot on one of those long long range misisons and he descibed how intercepting Japanese fighters put a cannon shell into one of the engines and caused a propellor hydraulics leak. After flying for three or so hours, the prop showed signs it was going to fail into flat pitch so it was shutdown. And they still had 4 more hours of flying! You have to get into the mindset of long range missions in the PTO and its operational problems.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2005)

> There is no combat record of them flying in these regions in 1943 and 1944 (and 1945 for the PI)



no, but to claim that they couldn't just because they didn't is equally stupid, when they served all over the world without problems...........



> Radials dont have a coolant system. I dont care whether its an Allison, a Merlin, or whatever, if a flak fragment or a bullet puts a hole in the cooling system, its eventually going to empty out. And being 1000 miles from the nearest airfield, with nothing but jungle and ocean below you and an engine that is GOING to eventually fail, is not something thats desireable.



i think you're taking this a bit far, no inlines couldn't take as much damage as a radial but they weren't made of paper, and redails aren't indestructable! 



> We are talking about what was deployed, not with a hypothetical modification.



the hurcules redail engined Mk.II wasn't a "hypothetical modification", 300 were made and they saw allot of service 



> Having a pilot at the controls during a bomb run when the pilot is incapacitated is not only desirable, but it should be mandantory. It would be a shame to send an aircrew on a mission 1300 miles away, only to fail to drop their bombs because the pilot had his arms shot off and there was noone else at the controls to fly the plane to complete the bomb run



Flight engineers were more often than not capable and trained to some extent to flying the aircraft, infact they are sometimes refered to as second pilots, and so i will say again, what is the problem with taking a second pilot along?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Nothing - the problem lies with a single pilot multi engine aircraft is during critical flight times, takeoff, landing, duirng the bomb run, flying into flak, under fighter attack, and during instrument operations. Actually I think the most dangreous mode would be while flying in the soup. That's the time where a co-pilot with another set of controls can make the differance between life and



That is the truth....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2005)

And if one inline engine fails on the lanc, big deal. It can fly on 3 just fine.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2005)

and like i said radials aren't the best thing since sliced bread, they're just as likely to be hit as inlines, and no a few hit's wont completely dissable the engine but it'll take out a few cylinders, and and engine that isn't fuctioning properly on any bomber is gonna be shut down, because it's effects aren't gonna be worth it as most four engined bombers can fly happily on 3 engines, hell the lanc could fly on one when not carrying a payload and with about 1/4 fuel...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2005)

Yes but as FBJ brought up in the heat of combat the stress on one pilot can be too great. For daytime bombing it would have been better to have two pilots to handle the load at one time.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2005)

well remember the flight engineer was often more than capable of taking the controlls of the aircraft and did actually controll about half the work load, the actual pilot didn't even controll the throttles in flight, the flight engineer did! the lanc pilot did little more than actually control the plane........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2005)

Not quite the same there..... 

Dont worry Lanc I still think the Lancaster is 2nd though...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 19, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > the problem lies with a single pilot multi engine aircraft is during critical flight times, takeoff, landing, duirng the bomb run, flying into flak, under fighter attack, and during instrument operations
> 
> 
> 
> well they managed it fine over europe??



That they did, but I think they could of done better if configured with 2 pilots. Many Lancasters (as well as other aircraft) sustained more accidents during training than in combat, and many of those accidents attributed to flying in the soup. The old saying goes "two heads are better than one," this being especially true when back in WW2 the only "IFR" instruments used were maybe a LF homing beacon combined with airbases that used gas fires to light a runway - this combined with a prayer sometimes got you home.

I know the Lanc had a slightly higher loss rate than the B-17, we discussed this earlier and attributed it to night ops, I think had there been a pilot and co-pilot in the Lancaster the loss rate would of been LOWER than the B-17 including all the night operations the Lanc participated in over Europe.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 19, 2005)

If I remember correctly, early Lancasters (I forget the mark) _did_ carry two pilots with dual flight controls, but the second pilot was soon deemed unnecessary. At least that was the official reasoning.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 19, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> And if one inline engine fails on the lanc, big deal. It can fly on 3 just fine.


Read Below


the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and like i said radials aren't the best thing since sliced bread, they're just as likely to be hit as inlines, and no a few hit's wont completely dissable the engine but it'll take out a few cylinders, and and engine that isn't fuctioning properly on any bomber is gonna be shut down, because it's effects aren't gonna be worth it as most four engined bombers can fly happily on 3 engines, hell the lanc could fly on one when not carrying a payload and with about 1/4 fuel...........


During engine shutdown even with a 4 engine bomber you still have to compensate for the dead engine, that being more profound on the outboard engines. What you rarely see in movies when this is happening is the pilot attempting to trim the aircraft to keep it straight and level and to keep pressure off the yoke so he's not fighting the controls. This process could take several minutes Addi tonally when shutting down the engine you have to 1. shut off fuel (some aircraft have an oil shut off as well), 2. shut down electrical, 3. feather the propeller, 4. put out the fire (if there is one). Although this sounds relatively simple, try doing this when flying through flack, on the bomb run or being attacked by fighters. Many times due to the inexperience of the pilot the wrong engine was shut down and then the aircraft really became a brick.

Now you are both correct in saying the Lanc could fly just fine on 3 engines, definitely correct, it could probably fly well on 2 - the situation gets sticky when the aircraft has to climb - there is a formula used for this but is is my guess an aircraft like the Lancaster will loose 30-40% of its climb rate and probably about 20% of its speed if flying on one engine. That could be a problem if having to keep up in a formation or having to climb over an obstacle. 


the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well remember the flight engineer was often more than capable of taking the con trolls of the aircraft and did actually control about half the work load, the actual pilot didn't even control the throttles in flight, the flight engineer did! the lanc pilot did little more than actually control the plane........


Very correct the FE takes up much of the load and many of them actually became pilots, and was very good of taking probably a third of the workload off the pilot, where a co-pilot would of been an asset would be in the soup or during emergency procedures. B-17s and -24s, with a two man flight crew many a times called upon the FE to actually help them fly the aircraft if controls surfaces were shot away....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 19, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> If I remember correctly, early Lancasters (I forget the mark) _did_ carry two pilots with dual flight controls, but the second pilot was soon deemed unnecessary. At least that was the official reasoning.



Yep - I remember reading the same thing - shame


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 20, 2005)

mmmm, i don't know where you read that, as far as i know they weren't fitted with dual controlls, however early on the flight engineer was officially deemed a "second pilot", however it was changed when flight engineer was deemed more approppriate, maybe this's what you're thinking of?



FB said:


> This process could take several minutes Addi tonally when shutting down the engine you have to 1. shut off fuel (some aircraft have an oil shut off as well), 2. shut down electrical, 3. feather the propeller, 4. put out the fire (if there is one). Although this sounds relatively simple, try doing this when flying through flack, on the bomb run or being attacked by fighters. Many times due to the inexperience of the pilot the wrong engine was shut down and then the aircraft really became a brick.



engine management was the flight engineer's job, shutting down an engine and fuel management was their bread and butter!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 20, 2005)

I've seen the dual controls mentioned in a couple of different books, lanc. I own one here somewhere. Problem is they don't mention the mark, so I can only assume it was the early Mk.I. It may not have even flown any missions that way. I'll root around in the basement for that book when I get home.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> engine management was the flight engineer's job, shutting down an engine and fuel management was their bread and butter!


Yes it was, especially in the Lancaster that didn't have the benefit of another pilot to assist and or accomplish that task along with an FE who on American aircraft were sitting right behind the pilot and co-pilot if not occupying the top turret. Here's a photo of the Lanc pilot and FE position - Do you think that optimum flight crew coordination compared to a 3 man flight station?

And although engine management was one part of the equation, you still have the flight through fighters and flak, and then foul weather where the only thing the FE could offer is engine management and an extra set of eyes.

Here's a photo of the Halifax with he same set up...

Now look at the B-17. The FE positioned himself between the 2 pilots during TO and landing and assisted during emergency operations. So effective was this set up it became the norm of postwar designs that had FEs.

The WW2 FE - although possibly having the capability to fly, did not normally have the training to fly the aircraft proficiently especially during instrument operations, and not taking anything away from RAF crews who flew Single pilot multi engine aircraft (if anything I think these guys were outstanding pilots doing the work of 2 people) I think there would of been many more RAF bombers returning from training and operational missions had there been a 2 pilot set up.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 20, 2005)

Umm, Joe, that cockpit is the B-24, not the B-17. That's "All American", the Collings Foundation B-24.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 20, 2005)

it was the general concencus with the lanc pilots however that she was quite light on the controlls and that she was very manourverable for a plane of her size,, i'm not saying a second pilot wouldn't be useful i'm simply addressing the picture you posted with the writing.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Umm, Joe, that cockpit is the B-24, not the B-17. That's "All American", the Collings Foundation B-24.



Yep - I realized that after I posted it!  



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> it was the general concencus with the lanc pilots however that she was quite light on the controlls and that she was very manourverable for a plane of her size,, i'm not saying a second pilot wouldn't be useful i'm simply addressing the picture you posted with the writing.........



Yes she was very manuverable and that pic with the writing does mention the role of the FE and how important he was.

I got some more info coming in this later today....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 20, 2005)

Oh lanc, I found that book I was talking about, but it's not exactly the best reference. It's "The Gatefold Book of World War II Warplanes". 
And it only has this to say: 

_"Early Lancasters carried a pilot and a second pilot, and were fitted with dual controls, but it was soon decided that the use of two pilots was unnecessary, especially since the second pilot acted as a systems manager. Use of a dedicated flight engineer improved efficiency and speeded up the flow of new crews from the Operational Training Units. The shortage of personnel was a key problem in the growth of Bomber Command's Lancaster force."_

So as you can see, it's not very informative at all. Some nice diagrams in this book though. I wish I had a scanner.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 20, 2005)

It looks like a personnel shortage may have been one of the factors as well.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 20, 2005)

ah not quite, personell shortage wasn't a problem, remember for years RAF bomber command was seen as the best way of striking back at the enemy which so many men wanted to do! the problem came with training times and at the time of the lanc going into production it was TRAINED personell that was an issue..............

and rest assured skimmey i'll be looking into this tonight! i do doubt it however, this's the first i've heard of it!


----------



## evangilder (Dec 20, 2005)

Still a personnel problem. If you put 2 pilots in the plane, then you have effectively half of the pilots you would otherwise have.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 20, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Still a personnel problem. If you put 2 pilots in the plane, then you have effectively half of the pilots you would otherwise have.



So deploy half of the bombers you have and you can lower your loss rate by having two pilots


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 20, 2005)

losses ore expect for almost all missions, no matter wether they're aircraft or soldiers, the aim of most missions is to do the most damage, acceptable losses are expected, you don't get something for nothing. halving the bombers will more than half the damage done, but despite having two pilots many planes will still get shot down, there's nothing two pilots can do about an aircraft that's had a wing blown off! if your stragagy really works sys then why didn't the RAF do it? because it wouldn't work, and you talk about the lanc having a greater loss ratio, what about the tonnage per aircraft lost?? 

lanc- dropped 710,081 tons for 3,498 aircraft lost = 202.9 tons dropped per aircraft lost

B-17 (although i admit the figures i'm using might not be correct, Adler posted them a long time ago)- dropped 640,036 for 4,688 aircraft lost = 136.5 tons dropped for each aircraft lost


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2005)

I'm back - had to teach a class today, doesn't my boss know I have more important things to do like discuss the Lancaster!  

OK - Some more points...

I found a great site that has information about a Lancaster crew station reproduction...

http://website.lineone.net/~norman.groom/index.htm

I'm going to use some of their photos....

Although the FE and pilot were in a close proximity, for the FE to manage power settings he had to be up front with the pilot, at his station were water and oil temperature gages, oil pressures plus fuel contents gages, oil dilution buttons, fuel booster pump switches and various other items. There are three fuel tanks in each wing, two main and one reserve, hence the six gages to the right of the main fuel cocks. 









It seems fuel shut off was accomplished at his station

The on the pilot's panel there were Tachometers, prop feather buttons and fire extinguishers. 





During flight any change in power setting will result in a climb or descent so to maintain a constant altitude the pilot is continually trimming the aircraft, this sounds a lot easier than done especially in a 4 engine bomber, and although the Lanc was easy to fly, there is still a lot going on, especially if the pilot only has a few hundred hours.

Now in an emergency situation you may have the FE assisting the pilot in managing power settings; where things may get real sticky is when an engine (or two) is lost and the aircraft has to be trimmed and configured to maintain a given altitude. Now combine that with any other adverse condition that "loads up" the pilot (damaged flight controls etc.) you only have one set of controls, although the FE is there and will help, the second pilot may be the difference between disaster and surviving if the situation worsens and more muscle is needed, especially if that light docile aircraft now becomes a beast in the air to maneuver.

Now a third perspective to this - blind flying. The Lancaster had a blind flying instrument panel.






For the most part the only thing you're going to get out of that panel is the ability is stay straight and level, maintain altitude and fly a general heading. The only real "homing" nav feature available to the pilot at the flight station was a DF receiver indicator. I believe the indicator is second from the right, second row. The main unit was at the wireless operator's panel.






Now let's put all this together...

Pilot flies, FE assists in power settings, fuel management, etc.- Pilot has to fly a crippled aircraft further increasing his workload, compound that with being in the "soup." Without visual aid the navigator is virtually useless unless he has radar, which will only guide him to a vicinity.
Here's a gee radar





So now worse case scenario - you have a shot up Lanc, flying blind using radar to and a DF beacon to find its way base to base, the base has 1/2 visibility and a 500 foot ceiling. the radar isn't going to be able to paint a precision picture for you to make the landing so you have to use the DF. Here's where it gets fun....

As far as I know there were only 2 ways to make an instrument approach during WW2 one was to follow an audible signal that guided you left or right of a target (the airport). While following that tone you monitored your altitude and airspeed and began to let down at a certain point. If you're airspeed is correct, you interpreted the tone properly you would wind up at the runway's threshold, hopefully seeing the runway at least 1/2 before landing. The second method was the use of the DF what was similar to the homing tone. With the needle aligned at a given which was a given distance from the end of the runway at a specified heading. The pilot would follow that heading until over the station. Once over the station the needle would swing backwards and the pilot would begin a timed descent at a given altitude. If done properly and the descent was on speed the pilot should reach the runway threshold at a given time and be at an altitude where the runway could be visually sighted. If the approach is accomplished and the runways isn't sighted, the pilot goes back to the station, over flies it, turns around and does the same thing all over again.

Today this is known as an NDB approach and is actually being fazed out in favor of GPS.






Approach plates were made to assist the pilot in accomplishing this...

NOW - you have a Shot up Lanc, an engine out (or two), in the soup, the FE managing engine controls and the pilot making this approach that requires you to be within 1/8 mile of course so you could see the runway(easier said than done since you're relying on an "AM radio") to guide you to the runway and the pilot only had say 200 hours and received no formal instrument approach training (very common at the beginning at WW2) - putting this much work load on a single pilot is crazy! A tribute to those RAF pilots who had to do this and also a reason why the 3 man flight crew eventually became the norm after WW2, and I believe after WW2 the Lincoln and Shackleton had a co-pilot


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 20, 2005)

i believe the forerunner of the ndb(non directional beacon) approach was called the aural null it along with ndb they are both hard approaches compared with what is available today requiring a skilled pilot which is an sort of an oxymorn 
this link will further cloud the issue
http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/VAR Markers Ops Notes 1953.htm


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2005)

pbfoot said:


> i believe the forerunner of the ndb(non directional beacon) approach was called the aural null it along with ndb they are both hard approaches compared with what is available today requiring a skilled pilot which is an sort of an oxymorn
> this link will further cloud the issue
> http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/VAR Markers Ops Notes 1953.htm



Great Site PB! That's what I was looking for! I have an old text book that explains it in detail - I wan't sure if it was used in conjuction with an NDB or it was stand alone. In either case I can't see using the system with anything worse than say 3/4 miles and 800'.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 21, 2005)

i've never said that a second pilot wouldn't be useful, but you cannot deny the fact that the RAF pilots did a stirling (see what i did there ) job on their own, and you're forgetting FIDO  i have a question and a point to make, what do you mean by in the soup? becuase in RAF slang that's ditching in water  and the point i wanted to make is what does this really have to do with the lanc vs. B-17 argument, it's more speculation and we're focusing too much on this one point that is just going round in circles, can't we get back to figures and suchlike for the planes?


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 21, 2005)

By soup he means low visiblity - ie in low level clouds, fog etc... Where you are unable to see very far thus not being able to see the runway or any landmarks to guide you to the airfield as result you rely on instruments.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 21, 2005)

so turn on the FIDO


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i've never said that a second pilot wouldn't be useful, but you cannot deny the fact that the RAF pilots did a stirling (see what i did there ) job on their own, and you're forgetting FIDO  i have a question and a point to make, what do you mean by in the soup? becuase in RAF slang that's ditching in water  and the point i wanted to make is what does this really have to do with the lanc vs. B-17 argument, it's more speculation and we're focusing too much on this one point that is just going round in circles, can't we get back to figures and suchlike for the planes?



That's the whole point - Lanc pilots were continually doing the work of 2 people, even though the FE was there you still had other elements of the flight where a second pilot was needed - A small plus I have to give to the B-17 and B-24, although I think the Lanc was a better over-all bomber. I guess the moral of this story is if I was in a shot up aircraft flying in the soup (Zero Visibility) and have to accomplish a WW2 type instrument approach, I'd rather be in a B-17 or B-24....

Although thought effective during WW2, FIDO (or any other visual lighting system) is only effective for about 1 mile and 800' ceiling. Below that it's useless and being a resident of the UK you know your weather could be a lot worse, today aircraft land with a 500' ceiling and 1/4 mile visibility. Under normal landing conditions you want to be "stabilized" on final, have a good 2 miles in front of you hnd have a good visual view of the runway. This is easily attained under normal conditions, thow in battle damage and a single pilot and you're looking at flirting with death. At 500' and 1/4 mile if you don't see the runway you have to go around and attempt the approach again - going any lower and attempting to feel out the runway is suicide and many times that's what all bomber crews faced when returning to base.

Oh - don't mention a "Stirling" job - the Stirling had 2 pilots.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 21, 2005)

so, essentailly we've gone through this entire discussion ans arrived where we started, with no real perpose 

and remember FIDO served a dual perpose, firstly it could be seen from miles away, but it's main job was to give off incredible heat, this heat would then cause the fog to disperse, it wasn't just a "visual sighting system" it was to get rid off fog and if you like, controll the weather...........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> so, essentailly we've gone through this entire discussion ans arrived where we started, with no real perpose


I guess you're right!  maybe just an agreement that a second pilot on the Lanc might of enhanced its effectiveness. I believe it would of given it an over-all loss rate way better than the -17 and -24 under all conditions.


the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and remember FIDO served a dual perpose, firstly it could be seen from miles away, but it's main job was to give off incredible heat, this heat would then cause the fog to disperse, it wasn't just a "visual sighting system" it was to get rid off fog and if you like, controll the weather...........


 
Very true - but being seen "miles away" I think is an exaggeration if we're talking really bad weather, I've flown over huge forest fires and the 50 foot flames, 2 or 3 miles wide generated by the fire could not be seen within the smoke they created, but FIDO did actually burn off the fog with limited effectiveness.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 21, 2005)

Lets not forget that in the PTO, there were no radio nav aids (at least in 42, 43 and 44). 

Having a 2nd pilot for aircraft operation in bad weather was paramount. For those who have never been in the tropics for any length of time, its hard to understand just how quickly weather can change with thunder cells forming withing minutes. Considering the turbulence that the aircraft had to fly through, and the effort two pilots would have to do to control the plane, I think it is further evidence that the lanc could not have maintained effective bomber ops in the PTO.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 21, 2005)

there were no nav aids because the americans didn't use them, if the RAF had deemed them nessisairy out there then we would've used our own out there, and i fail to see what the lack of nav aids has to do with a single pilot?

and, give us some credit, the British built the largest empire the world's ever seen, we ruled the seas for cenuries and the navy and merchant ships traveled around the west pacific for years, we know about the weather out there  and lancs served in asia very successfully, at the moment your entire argument seems to be based on the fact that the lanc didn't see service in the PTO whereas the B-17 and -24 did?? does this also mean that the Me-262, Ta-152 and La-7 weren't some of the best fighters of the war?? they didn't see serivce in the PTO?? whereas obviously the Buffalo is one of the best fighters of the war, she saw service over Europe and the PTO!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> there were no nav aids because the americans didn't use them, if the RAF had deemed them nessisairy out there then we would've used our own out there, and i fail to see what the lack of nav aids has to do with a single pilot?


Ah! There were! AM radio stations! There were also specific DF stations that were used for navigation as well as approach markers. Simple instrument approaches were derived based on the locations of these radio stations - to do this type of flying in a 4 engined aircraft is difficult to say the least, 2 pilots make it that much easier as during the process there is a descent rate that must be maintained while flying the aircraft, timing of the descent, monitoring of airspeed, reading a chart, and keeping the DF needle on the desired course, a lot harder than it sounds, compound that with a cross winds or damage to the aircraft it goes from difficult to insanely difficult, and that's just short of impossible, but it was accomplished by many but also caused the death of many....

Another reason for 2 pilots - vertigo. Very common when in the soup. It's real easy to get disorientated when instrument flying, I believe this is probably the main reason for non-combat Lancaster losses...


the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and, give us some credit, the British built the largest empire the world's ever seen, we ruled the seas for cenuries and the navy and merchant ships traveled around the west pacific for years, we know about the weather out there  and lancs served in asia very successfully, at the moment your entire argument seems to be based on the fact that the lanc didn't see service in the PTO whereas the B-17 and -24 did?? does this also mean that the Me-262, Ta-152 and La-7 weren't some of the best fighters of the war?? they didn't see serivce in the PTO?? whereas obviously the Buffalo is one of the best fighters of the war, she saw service over Europe and the PTO!!


Agree 100%


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 21, 2005)

this's kinda confusing for me, i'm having a long "argument" with you FB where we're baisically just agreeing, then sys'll come along and ruin it occassionally


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> this's kinda confusing for me, i'm having a long "argument" with you FB where we're baisically just agreeing, then sys'll come along and ruin it occassionally


Yep  

Al least he not saying "it could be simulated with the right software program."


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 21, 2005)

so sys have you given up the argument yet? can we just move onto 3rd?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2005)

So...

1. B-29
2. Lancaster
3. ?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 21, 2005)

let's not be so quick, sys'll come in a while and say the same thing he keeps on saying..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and, give us some credit, the British built the largest empire the world's ever seen, we ruled the seas for cenuries and the navy and merchant ships traveled around the west pacific for years, we know about the weather out there



Yes the but the Jet Stream was relativly new at this time.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and lancs served in asia very successfully, at the moment your entire argument seems to be based on the fact that the lanc didn't see service in the PTO whereas the B-17 and -24 did?? does this also mean that the Me-262, Ta-152 and La-7 weren't some of the best fighters of the war?? they didn't see serivce in the PTO?? whereas obviously the Buffalo is one of the best fighters of the war, she saw service over Europe and the PTO!!



And I am sure he would agree with you because they did not serve in the PTO they are disqualified and also because they are not US made and designed aircraft.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 21, 2005)

Simulations show that if Lancs were deployed to the PTO, their efficiency would go down due to pilot fatigue plus intercepting Japanese fighters would inflict a good many loss's on them. Simulations also show that the liquid cooled engines would cause higher operational loss's.

The facts are clear. The Lanc might have been a great bomber for the short range nighttime missions in the ETO, but its use as a long range bomber for day/night missions in the PTO would clearly be substandard.

The B24 is clearly the 2nd best bomber.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2005)

However for sake of moving on as I have been wanting to do. I believe the the 3rd has to go to the B-17 or the B-24. Let the debates begin.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Simulations show that if Lancs were deployed to the PTO, their efficiency would go down due to pilot fatigue plus intercepting Japanese fighters would inflict a good many loss's on them. Simulations also show that the liquid cooled engines would cause higher operational loss's.



And simulations also show that they can not produce the real thing! GIVE UP THE DAMN SIMULATOR CRAP. MICROSOFT FLIGHT SIM AND WHATEVER ELSE YOU ARE "PLAYING", IS NOT FLYING, IT IS "PLAYING".


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 21, 2005)

> Simulations also show that the liquid cooled engines would cause higher operational loss's.



so, as i said, if it's such a big deal to you, use the radial engined Mk.II...........



> plus intercepting Japanese fighters would inflict a good many loss's on them



i fail to see how this would be different than any other bomber?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> The B24 is clearly the 2nd best bomber.



And the reasons being:

1. It was built by the US.
2. Your experience with flying it on sims makes you the accurate source of which on is better.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 21, 2005)

A result based on a simulation isn't a fact. It might display a likely-hood at best, but it's not a fact.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2005)

Yeap and most people can see that....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > Simulations show that if Lancs were deployed to the PTO, their efficiency would go down due to pilot fatigue plus intercepting Japanese fighters would inflict a good many loss's on them. Simulations also show that the liquid cooled engines would cause higher operational loss's.
> ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2005)

Jesus I that just annoys me. I wonder if these people also live there lives through games like "The Sims" because they seem to live by them.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 21, 2005)

I knew that would annoy you


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 22, 2005)

so're you giving up the argument yet sys?


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 22, 2005)

Nope, stay tuned for my counter arguments


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 22, 2005)

i'm not exactily sitting on the edge of my seat  you only seem capable of giving the same 2/3 points each time

1) the lanc had no co-pilot

2) she didn't see active service in the pacific

3) she didn't have radials (or atleast you don't seem to think so)

all of these points have been addressed...........


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 22, 2005)

Did the Lancs the RCAF used post war for maritime patrol have one or two pilots?


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 22, 2005)

They might be the same points, but it needs to be resolved. We cant let "details" get in the way, can we.

First off, the Lanc would need to operate in daylight missions in the PTO. Its defensive weapons, all .303's were not up to the task. the B24 had 10 .50's and that was just barely adequate to defend against the Japanese fighters. Unless the Lanc was modified to have heavier firepower, then it would have taken some heavy loss's. And if I allow you to say the Lanc could easily be modified, then I get to modify the B24 to improve its performance.

The B24 gets points for better defensive firepower compared to the Lanc.

Second, although the Merlins were a reliable engine, it was a liquid cooled engine. It is a fact that liquid cooled engines need a seperate cooling system compared to radials, and this cooling system is vulnerable to being holed by flak or bullets. In Europe, the short ranges flown normally would have given the Lanc the chance to fly back to safety before the engine seizes up completely. Now compare that to the PTO where you would have 1300 mile missions. Could a liquid cooled engine hold up for several hours? Nope. End result is youre flying a large plane minus one engine over ocean and jungle, over a long distance. Your argument about the Lanc being modified to use radial engines belongs in the "would have could have" catagory

The B24 gets points for the engines being less vulnerable to damage.

Third, the one pilot cockpit has its drawbacks for the mission that would be flown. You offer no compelling reason why a single pilot single control setup that the Lanc had was just as reliable or efficent than the US setup. I could just imagine a Lanc, 1300 miles from base with flak damaged engines and control surfaces with a single pilot using a single control column struggling to keep it steady and flying for the seven or eight hours in the air. (I wont even factor in if he also had to contend with bad weather bouncing the plane around). Your hypothesis of bringing along an extra pilot doesnt hold water, cause even if their were five pilots on board, theres only one column.

The B24 gets points for this.

Finally, the B24 did fly in ever theater of the war. The Lanc didnt. Even the USN used the B24 for maritime patrol. Plus, when the Aussies had a chance to form their own heavy bomb group in the PTO, what did they choose, the B24.

The B24 gets bonus points.

So, untill you disprove these little details, Id say the the B24 is still the #2 bomber, but just by a RCH.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 22, 2005)

pbfoot said:


> Did the Lancs the RCAF used post war for maritime patrol have one or two pilots?


The MR/MP variants had only one pilot. I haven't been able to find anything on the AR (Arctic Reconnaissance) variant though, myself.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2005)

_"Your argument about the Lanc being modified to use radial engines belongs in the "would have could have" catagory..."_

His argument about the Lancaster being modified to use radial engines is certainly not a "would have, could have" - it's solid fact. Did you forget to study the Lancaster before coming into this argument? 

Does anyone notice something 'odd' about this Lancaster? 







Wing Commander L.Crooks' Lancaster Mk.II

From http://www.rcaf.com


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 22, 2005)

Ah, good ol' RCAF.com.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 23, 2005)

> The B24 gets points for better defensive firepower compared to the Lanc



that's fair enough, however in reality no ammount of defensive armourment's gonna stop you getting shot down if an attacker knows what he's doing.........



> Your argument about the Lanc being modified to use radial engines belongs in the "would have could have" catagory



as pD said, and i have said before but you have obviously overlooked, 300 Mk.II lancasters were produced with Bristol Hercules RADIAL engines and they saw extensive use, if you want more pictures than the one pD posted because it simply baffles you and is obviously some sort of fake, as this could never've happened, i will gladly oblige  study up before awarding points 

regarding the single pilot i have admitted that a second would be useful.........



> Finally, the B24 did fly in ever theater of the war. The Lanc didnt



let's see, where did the lanc fly:-

England
France
Sweeden
Argentina
Egypt
Australia
canada 
Bermuda 
Numerous other civilain destinations
India
all over africa
you name a british colony in asia, it flew there too
actually, one lanc even flew right around the world 
not to mention of course the two lancs that DID FLY OVER THE PACIFIC in order to see if they could, and they could 



> Even the USN used the B24 for maritime patrol



dude what does that prove when the RAF, RN and RCAF used lancs for maritime patrol too 



> Plus, when the Aussies had a chance to form their own heavy bomb group in the PTO, what did they choose, the B24.



 the aussies had to choose them! there weren't even enough lancs for use in britain let alone her colonies, everyone was screaming out for them! 

but, some of you may have noticed that so far i haven't really been arguing the lancs numerous good points, well i realised that too just now  so, let's see what we got..........

payload- EASILY the lanc's point, i only have to mention one word, grandslam 

Crusing speed (i'm sure most will agree, more important in a bomber than top speed)- well from what i can see on www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org the B-24's cruising speed was 190mph fully loaded, the lanc's was 210 fully loaded  and don't get into an argument with me about the lanc's top speed, i'd hate to have to brink out a lanc Mk.VI 

payload to range- again warbird's resorces says the -24 could carry a 5,000lb payload 2,200 miles, a lanc could carry a 7,000lb payload 2,530 miles 

as you may be able to tell by now i like to see figures when arguing, so let's look at some more!

tonnage dropped per aircraft lost, quite important i think you'll agree, i do however admit that the -24's figures might be wrong, i'm using a source adler posted some time ago

lanc- 710,081 tons dropped for 3,498 lost on ops, i make that 203 (to 0 dp) tons of bombs dropped on the enemy for every one they managed to shoot down

by comparison

B-24- 452,508 tons dropped for 3,626 lost, i make that a meager 124 tons dropped for every aircraft shot down, says something, no?

you may also wish to note the lanc dropped around 50% greater tonnage than the B-24

but what about the average weight dropped per sortie? 

lanc- 710,081 tons for 156,308 sorties, i make that (luckily for you) rounded down to 4.5 tons per sortie! 

B-24- 452,508 tons for 226,775 sorties, luckily for you, rounds up to an incdredible.........2 tons per sortie! i don't even have to trouble my calculator to figure out that's less than half the lanc's tonnage per sortie!

but then what about the lanc's family? a good indication of how good a plane is surely lies in what planes they give birth to as it were, well the lanc's family were serving into the 1980's, well into the jet age!

but what about versatility? you just have to take annother look at the list of lancaster marks and some of the roles they performed to see the lanc walks away with this one!

care to carry on sys?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2005)

The only negative I could give the Lanc is the lack of a co-pilot for all the reasons previously stated - aside from that I think it it was a better over-all bomber...

Oh I do remember reading that the B-24 was chosen by many commonwealth nations was because of the unavailability of the Lancaster for export during the war years


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 23, 2005)

We built 'em. 
No, but we flew a few Liberators too.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 23, 2005)

I agree that the Lanc was superior in range and payload. But that came at the cost (for the PTO) of a far higher potential loss rate. As Ive said before, if "modified" lancs were available for the PTO, they would have had a field day inflicting damage on the japanese.

I also noticed one thing about the statistics you quoted......... the Lanc had a zero loss rate in the SW pacific. Thats incredible. Could it be because it didnt fly in that area? By the way, if the B17's and B24's flew their missions at night, their loss rate would go way down too. Now lets see the statistics of a Lanc flying a daylight mission deep into Germany in early 1944. 

Regarding the radial engine lancs..... I misread the production number, I thought it said 300 planned, not built. Even so, if they were built, why didnt they deploy them into the PTO where they could have had an impact (and I consider the CBI theater as part of the PTO).

End result is the Lancs performance in the SW Pacific is still theoretical, while the B24 performance is fact.

The B24 is still the 2nd best.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2005)

Im pretty sure those figures lanc posted include day bombing over Germany...

And whats this? A huge contradiction?



> By the way, if the B17's and B24's flew their missions at night, their loss rate would go way down too.





> End result is the Lancs performance in the SW Pacific is still theoretical, while the B24 performance is fact



Oh dear, looks like the B-24's performance at night over Europe is theoretical, whilst the Lancs is fact.

Who says the lancs would fly at day in the Pacific too, the RAF's policy was predominantly night bombing, and the Lancaster was a night bomber. I dont see why they'd suddenly change it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 23, 2005)

> I also noticed one thing about the statistics you quoted......... the Lanc had a zero loss rate in the SW pacific



at no point did i say this, re-read what i posted, and stop putting words into my mouth............



> Could it be because it didnt fly in that area?



i can assure you they did, look at the list of nations they served with, and that's not even taking into account the destinations she just flew to.........



> By the way, if the B17's and B24's flew their missions at night, their loss rate would go way down too



for someone who so obviously hates people suggest theoretical performance, you seem to do it rather allot 



> why didnt they deploy them into the PTO where they could have had an impact (and I consider the CBI theater as part of the PTO).



because there weren't even enough lancs for Europe! squadrons were crying out for them, there weren't any spare.........

and are you seriously going to ignore all the stats i posted up there? they're FACT, not only that it took me a long time to put that together, it's rude to just ignore it 

incase you didn't see them i'll just give you a summary

payload- lanc wins

payload to range- lanc wins

versatility- lanc wins by a long long way

cruising speed- lanc wins

top speed- B-24 wins by 8mph, unless i bring in the lanc Mk.VI, in which case the B-24 looses by over 50mph 

tonnage dropped per sortie- lanc wins with more than twice that of the B-24

Total tonnage- lanc wins, around 50% greater tonnage

tonnage dropped per aircraft lost- lanc wins by a considderable margin

size of family/no. of marks- lanc wins

manouverability- lanc wins

end result is the lanc is statistically superior, by a long way, to the B-24, fact  anyone else care to enter the argument?


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 23, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Im pretty sure those figures lanc posted include day bombing over Germany...



If he has the figures for night vs daylight, then Id like to see them. In fact, Id like to see how many deep penetration missions during daylight the Lancs did.



> And whats this? A huge contradiction?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There were some B17 and B24 squadrons that performed night missions. There is no evidence that the bombers would be any less effective than the Lanc if they had been totally dedicated to night missions. At nighttime, navigation is what counts. All allied navigators were capable.



> Who says the lancs would fly at day in the Pacific too, the RAF's policy was predominantly night bombing, and the Lancaster was a night bomber. I dont see why they'd suddenly change it.



The B24's in the PTO flew both day and night missions. If the Lanc is a totally dedicated nighttime bomber, then it loses points for being less versatile.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 23, 2005)

> There is no evidence that the bombers would be any less effective than the Lanc if they had been totally dedicated to night missions



in exactily the same way there is no evidence as to the lanc's "ineffectiveness" in the PTO 



> At nighttime, navigation is what counts. All allied navigators were capable



fact is, yank navigators had much less experience at night, where it's allot different to the day, plus the british had allot of electronic aids.........


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 23, 2005)

and i'm still baffled as to how you keep missing the stats i post


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Dec 23, 2005)

I personally think both the Lancaster and B-24 have strong and weak points to consider. The Lancaster from what I have read and saw is a very maneuverable aircraft for its size and does pretty good even when loaded. 

A B-24 on the other hand is a pig! Ive talked many times with the CAF crews who fly the LB-30 Diamond Lil and they describe her as a handful and thats speaking well of her. If you look at a general overview of the entire B-24 program you can see they were constantly trying to lighten the aircraft and keep the center of gravity in adjustment. Also some of my friends on the B-29 yahoo group have a lot of experience with the whole B-17 B-24 controversy. One individual was a top turret gunner/flight engineer on a B-17 described the B-24 as being overrated. Flying with the 15th AF in the Mediterranian he said they would frequently outpace the B-24s in speed and altitude. He also mentioned one time crossing the Alps with B-24's below them and remembered some B-24's dropping some of their bombload just to clear the Alps.

While the B-24 did do a lot better in the Pacific due to distances involved and being able to fly at lower altitudes that allowed it to carry its maximum bomb load, it still was a handful.

I also think the Lancaster's only real problem was the lack of a second pilot and perhaps crew egress (Ive read they were hard to get out of).

I think it would have been alright in the Pacific, especially toward the end of the war when a great deal of B-29 missions were flown at night for firebombing, this was something the Lancaster was no stranger to.

Also consider that plenty of other liquid cooled aircraft operated in the Pacific and over Japan. The P-40, P-39, P-51, P-38 and Spitfire were all in the Pacific and faired well. I know they are fighters but still they faced Japanese opposition.

Also I have posted this picture before of a modification for Tiger Force Lancasters and also here is a quote from the website I got it from.

" Two Lancaster Is were also tested with 1,200 gallon saddle tanks faired into the cockpit and extending back over the upper turret position. The aircraft were flown to India for trials, and made an appearance in Australia, but the tests were disappointing and both aircraft were scrapped in November 1946."


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 23, 2005)

> at no point did i say this, re-read what i posted, and stop putting words into my mouth............



You brought up loss rate statistics, and I was pointing out that the Lanc had no stats in the PTO



> i can assure you they did, look at the list of nations they served with, and that's not even taking into account the destinations she just flew to.........



The Lanc did not fly a single combat mission against Japanese targets in the Dutch East Indies, New Guinie, Solomon Islands nor the small atolls in the SW Pacific. I am not aware of it flying many missions in the CBI area either (although the B24 did).



> for someone who so obviously hates people suggest theoretical performance, you seem to do it rather allot



You were quoting statistics that were in effect, mixing apples and oranges. Loss rates should be compared to the Lanc flying during the day vs the B24 and the B24 flying at night vs the Lanc.



> why didnt they deploy them into the PTO where they could have had an impact (and I consider the CBI theater as part of the PTO).





> because there weren't even enough lancs for Europe! squadrons were crying out for them, there weren't any spare.........



Are you saying a squadron or two couldnt have been spared? And how many were being wasted on maritime patrol missions when they should have been on bombing missions.



> and are you seriously going to ignore all the stats i posted up there? they're FACT, not only that it took me a long time to put that together, it's rude to just ignore it



I read all of what you post.



> payload- lanc wins



agreed



> payload to range- lanc wins



agreed



> versatility- lanc wins by a long long way



wins, but not by a large margin.



> cruising speed- lanc wins



agreed



> top speed- B-24 wins by 8mph, unless i bring in the lanc Mk.VI, in which case the B-24 looses by over 50mph



The B29 deployment meant the B24 development was ended, unless you want to compare the Lanc against the B32. US wins here because we made a generational leap with the B29 while you were left with improving an existing design.



> tonnage dropped per sortie- lanc wins with more than twice that of the B-24



Agreed



> Total tonnage- lanc wins, around 50% greater tonnage



agreed, although you should be mentioning the stats of the bombing accuracy on a specific target rather than an area wide bombing run. Anyone can dump a lot of bombs on a city and hit something.



> tonnage dropped per aircraft lost- lanc wins by a considderable margin



agreed, but see my comment above.



> size of family/no. of marks- lanc wins



irrelevant. 



> manouverability- lanc wins



agreed, but how was the maneuverability with two engines shot out and only one pilot to fly the plane?



> end result is the lanc is statistically superior, by a long way, to the B-24, fact  anyone else care to enter the argument?



Youre right. Since there are no statistics of the Lancs usage in the PTO, the B24 wins hands down.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 23, 2005)

> in exactily the same way there is no evidence as to the lanc's "ineffectiveness" in the PTO



The B24 flew night missions in both the ETO and PTO with no problem. But the Lanc didnt fly in the PTO with its unique operationsal problems, so you just cant say if it works in the ETO, it will work just as well in the PTO



> fact is, yank navigators had much less experience at night, where it's allot different to the day, plus the british had allot of electronic aids



Just a matter of training and experience. Nothing US navigators couldnt handle.

Note - you just mentioned the Lanc navigators using electronic aids. I wonder how well they could handle bombing at night in the PTO with NO navaids.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> > in exactily the same way there is no evidence as to the lanc's "ineffectiveness" in the PTO
> 
> 
> 
> ...



With the exception of nav radar (which was later carried in US bombers), the navigation aids equipping both aircraft were basically the same. Low frequency DF was the main tool combined with other types of LF homing beacons, but for the most part they were all very similar. 

Believe it or not sometimes its actually easier to navigate at night, especially a night with a full or partial moon, many geographical features are enhanced, and least to say if someone forgot to turn out their lights or if a pathfinder aircraft drops a bunch of flares and lights up a target.

The "Naviguessers" primary form of navigation was Dead Reckoning and Pilotage which meant for the most part electronic aids were secondary, when necessary, they even used the trusty ole sextant. WW2 bomber navigation was primarily done with a visual aid, either from the ground or using stars - when radar was used be rest assured the Navigusser was sweating.....


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Dec 23, 2005)

> size of family/no. of marks- lanc wins



I dont know about that... the B-24 was used just for about anything and everything. That sorta stuff happens when you have so many of them. I can find about 30 variants of the B-24. Sure some of them are similar but again a B.I and B.III Lancaster are greatly similar as are many other variants.


Also wasnt the Lancaster able to be fitted with dual controls? On the side of the control column there is a plate that can be removed and a second column attached. Ive seen this somewhere before but dont remember where and when it was used though.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2005)

DaveB.inVa said:


> > size of family/no. of marks- lanc wins
> 
> 
> 
> Also wasnt the Lancaster able to be fitted with dual controls? On the side of the control column there is a plate that can be removed and a second column attached. Ive seen this somewhere before but dont remember where and when it was used though.



For the most part they weren't but it wouldn't surprise me if there were a provision to easilly add a second set of controls...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 23, 2005)

Here's an interesting bit.

http://www.raafawa.org.au/wa/museum/lanc/history.htm

_"A total of 30 Lancaster squadrons were to be flown from Europe to the Far East between August and November 1945, to raid the Japanese mainland from bases in Eastern India and Okinawa.

Their aircraft, designated F.E. (Far East) Lancasters. had modifications which Included more powerful Rolls Royce Merlin 24 engines of 1640 h.p.; Nash and Thompson rear turrets with two 0.5 Inch Browning machine guns instead of the earlier four .303 Brownings; a Martin dorsal turret with two more 0.5's and an additional 1800 litre fuel tank in the rear of the bomb bay.

With a typical 3,200 kg bomb load, this extended the aircraft's range from 4,200 to 5,300 kilometres. Special lifeboat-dropping Lancasters would be available for rescue operations on long oversea raids. Other Tiger Force Lancasters were designated to carry Grand Slam and the almost equally destructive 5,300 kg Tallboy bombs over shorter ranges against special targets, or to operate in tactical close-support roles with the British / Indian Army In Burma."_


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 23, 2005)

Too bad it wasnt available in 1943/1944.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Dec 23, 2005)

The flying Canadian Lanc in Hamilton has dual controls.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 23, 2005)

I didn't know that. Hmmm.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 24, 2005)

> The Lanc did not fly a single combat mission against Japanese targets in the Dutch East Indies, New Guinie, Solomon Islands nor the small atolls in the SW Pacific. I am not aware of it flying many missions in the CBI area either



no, but that doesn't mean they didn't operate in that area, and information about them being reddied for that area has been given.............



> You were quoting statistics that were in effect, mixing apples and oranges. Loss rates should be compared to the Lanc flying during the day vs the B24 and the B24 flying at night vs the Lanc



well in that case we shouldn't compare the top speeds of the Me-262 against prop driven fighters (for example), it's unfair as it's apples and oranges  



> Are you saying a squadron or two couldnt have been spared?


 
the logistics required for this wouldn't be worth it, and no, there weren't just two squadrons lying around doing nothing 



> And how many were being wasted on maritime patrol missions when they should have been on bombing missions.



Approximately? none. they were used for maritime patrol after the war



> Quote:
> size of family/no. of marks- lanc wins
> 
> irrelevant.



not quite  no one will develop a bad plane much, the better the plane, the more variants, the more planes it will spawn...........



> how was the manoeuvrability with two engines shot out and only one pilot to fly the plane?



fine, on numerous test flights at full military spec with only a pilot and co-pilot, when they shut down two engines on the same side the pilots reported no difficulties in keeping the aircraft straight and level, why, how was the B-24s? oh yeah that's right, a couple of hit in the B-24s wing and it'd break off 



> Youre right. Since there are no statistics of the Lancs usage in the PTO, the B24 wins hands down



does anyone else here agree with that? 



> But the Lanc didnt fly in the PTO with its unique operationsal problems, so you just cant say if it works in the ETO, it will work just as well in the PTO



at no point have I explicitly said that's what I think, however you cannot say the opposite  why, because we don't know!



> Just a matter of training and experience. Nothing US navigators couldnt handle



I never said they couldn't but getting experience took time, allot of it..........



> I wonder how well they could handle bombing at night in the PTO with NO navaids.



that's like saying how would she fly without wings  you can't just take away an aircraft's advantage in order to make things equal in an argument, if they're equal no one's gonna win anyway 

so you're seriously saying that the fact that the lanc had better

payload
manoeuvrability
cruising speed
payload to range
versatility (I can assure you the lanc does win this by a large margin, start a separate thread for it if you wish )
total tonnage
tonnage per sortie
tonnage per aircraft lost

means absolutely nothing?

And yes both the flying lancs have dual controls installed, they’re far too valuable not to!


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 24, 2005)

Great pics Lanc - 

In short, I feel, from all I've read of Bomber Command's history, the Lancaster would've contributed greatly to Japan's defeat if it had served in the PTO....
While I have great respect also for the Liberator, particuarly in the Maritime role, the Lancaster was the most manoevrable bomber of it's size, considering THAT was it's primary defence, it's 4-6 .303's blazing from rear and dorsal turrets to hit or frustrate NF attacks being secondary....
In daylight raids, if it had Mustang escort [another inline-engined aircraft of great success], and .5's and ball turret, that would have clinched it......
Also, it proved extremely durable against flak and fighter damage......
It was revered by it's crews, and the design went on to become the Lincoln and finally the Shackleton, a great maritime aircraft......

May I also take this oppurtunity to wish you ALL a safe and happy Festive Season and great New Year..........

Gemhorse


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 24, 2005)

thanks, seasons greatings to you too!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2005)

Greatr pics Lanc, happy hollidays gemhorse
A thought.....Are those photos from a FLYING Lancaster or one that was being flown just a few years ago? A guess but it may be possible that the CAA may of mandated a second set of controls and an additional pilot for civilian operation.....Just a thought


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 24, 2005)

Likely. None of the operational marks in RCAF service that I've been able to find info on had dual controls.
Still not sure about the AR variant though.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Dec 24, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Greatr pics Lanc, happy hollidays gemhorse
> A thought.....Are those photos from a FLYING Lancaster or one that was being flown just a few years ago? A guess but it may be possible that the CAA may of mandated a second set of controls and an additional pilot for civilian operation.....Just a thought



Yes.

The best pilot, 9 'motors', no copilot, and comes tonight.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 24, 2005)

The only true Top Gun. 

(Source unknown. Received via e-mail.)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 24, 2005)

Aha, so now we know why Iceman is called Iceman...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 24, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Greatr pics Lanc, happy hollidays gemhorse
> A thought.....Are those photos from a FLYING Lancaster or one that was being flown just a few years ago? A guess but it may be possible that the CAA may of mandated a second set of controls and an additional pilot for civilian operation.....Just a thought



i'm not quite sure what you mean? these are current(ish) pics of the only two flying lancs left??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Greatr pics Lanc, happy hollidays gemhorse
> ...



Your CAA (The FAA here in the states) has to authorize the operation of these aircraft. In the US they carry a registration as "Experimental Exhibition," over in the UK you may have something similar operating under the European "JAA" (Joint Aviation Authority). Many times the FAA (or CAA/ JAA in your part of the world) may impose certain restriction on these aircraft and it's very possible they (the UK CAA or JAA) mandated a second pilot, considering the aircraft is considered a "large aircraft" which is actually determined by weight, 12,500 pounds (FAA and JAA). Additionally I would guess as these aircraft are not flown that often pilot proficiency might be an issue so the installation of dual control always ensures that one pilot might be "checking out" another pilot to fly the aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 24, 2005)

ah, well i can't speak for the canadian lanc but the RAF operated lanc i believe they installed the second set of controlls volentarily due to the immense value of the aircraft

now that sys aint here, who here agrees that the lancaster is a better bomber overall than the B-24? maybe if there's anough people agreeing with me he'll give up and we can finally move on............


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 24, 2005)

I like to give thought to your comments before answering back, so yes I am here, I am contemplating my response, and if anything, youre making an even better case for the B24 being better.

Keep posting.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> ah, well i can't speak for the canadian lanc but the RAF operated lanc i believe they installed the second set of controlls volentarily due to the immense value of the aircraft



And the insurance company may require it as well...

I worked for a guy who owned a PBY - it was required by regulation as well as his insurance that he had 2 guys flying the aircraft.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 24, 2005)

from my point of view they probably require 1 pilot if it was an NCO in command or two commissioned otherwise


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 25, 2005)

pbfoot said:


> from my point of view they probably require 1 pilot if it was an NCO in command or two commissioned otherwise


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 25, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> pbfoot said:
> 
> 
> > from my point of view they probably require 1 pilot if it was an NCO in command or two commissioned otherwise


 pbfoot.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 25, 2005)

He's right.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 25, 2005)

I flew a T-34 in an airshow at the base I used to drill at when I was in the naval reserve. My maintenance chief allowed that to count as a drill weekend. I wore an enlisted flight suit with my name tage indicating my rank (Petty Officer 2nd Class). 3/4 of the officers couldn't believe that an enlisted puke could fly! They were pissed cause I got to go into the VIP area - I told them "Sir if more NCOs were pilots, it would give you more time to do your - paperwork - correctly."  Sir!


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 25, 2005)




----------



## evangilder (Dec 25, 2005)

Good zinger there, Joe!


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 25, 2005)




----------



## wmaxt (Dec 25, 2005)

A lot of enlisted flew in combat in WWII for both the USN and the RAF. They did as well as any of the officers.

wmaxt


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 25, 2005)

The best always come up from the ranks its not often they get there by BS


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 26, 2005)

No crews in RAF bomber Command were enlisted, they were all volenteers.........

and this run through of the RAF ranks was very popular in Bomber command during the war

Air Marshal-
can leap tall buildings with a single bound
more powerful than a steam train
faster than a speading bullet
walks on water
Gives policy to God

Air Commadore-
can leap tall buildings with a running start
more powerful than a diesel engine
as fast as a speeding bullet
walks on water if dea is calm
discusses policy with God

Group Captain-
leaps short buildings with a single bound
more powerful than a tank engine 
can occassionally keep up with a speeding bullet
walks on water in small lakes
talks with God

Wing Commander-
leaps short buildings with a running start
is almost as powerul as a tank engine
is able to avoid a speeding bullet
walks on water in indoor swimming pools
talks to God if special request it granted

Squadron Leader-
can just clear a small hut
looses tug of war with tank engine
can deflect a speeding bullet
swims well
is occassionally addressed by God

Flight Lieutenant-
demolishes chimney when leaping small huts
is run over by steam trains
can handle a gun
dog paddles adequately
talks to animals 

Flying Officer-
runs into buildings
reconises steam trains two times out of three
is not issued with guns
can stay afloat with a Mae West
talks to walls

Pilot Officer-
falls over doorsteps 
says "i see no trains"
trusted only with water pistols
stays on dry land
mumbles to himself

Warrant Officer-
lifts tall buildings and walks under them 
kicks steam trains off tracks
catches bullets with his teeth
freezes water with a single glance
because he IS God


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 26, 2005)

Good list, lanc. I've seen that before. 



wmaxt said:


> A lot of enlisted flew in combat in WWII for both the USN and the RAF. They did as well as any of the officers.
> 
> wmaxt


RCAF too. 
In my grandfather's case though, he began his pilot training as an NCO but was commissioned as a Pilot Officer part way through it. There were however, like you say, many NCO pilots.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 26, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I flew a T-34 in an airshow at the base I used to drill at when I was in the naval reserve. My maintenance chief allowed that to count as a drill weekend. I wore an enlisted flight suit with my name tage indicating my rank (Petty Officer 2nd Class). 3/4 of the officers couldn't believe that an enlisted puke could fly! They were pissed cause I got to go into the VIP area - I told them "Sir if more NCOs were pilots, it would give you more time to do your - paperwork - correctly."  Sir!



That is correct for damn sure!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 27, 2005)

so are the bulk of us agreed on 

1) B-29
2) Lanc



so then, 3rd?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 27, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> so are the bulk of us agreed on
> 
> 1) B-29
> 2) Lanc
> ...



B-17 - The documented evidence of how much battle damage it could absorb is renowned. Even die-hard B-24 drivers will admit the B-17 was a better flier. The B-24 did offer some advantages, but it was the B-17 that took the fight of the USAAF to Germany with the B-24 just a RCH behind....

3) B-17
4) B-24


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 27, 2005)

lanc lots of crews in bomber command were enlisted


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 27, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > so are the bulk of us agreed on
> ...



i'd proberly go along with that, which leaves the halibag 5th?

and pb, you're proberly right however the manchester and lancaster archive says 



> Each crew member volunteered for aircrew duties. None were conscripted into their jobs.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 27, 2005)

P.108 5th


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 27, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 27, 2005)

I dontsee why not, It, like the Halifax, was a night bomber, which could carry nearly 8,000lbs of bombs over 2,200miles, It has a better ceiling than the Halifax, is better armed, more heavily armoured...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 27, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > the lancaster kicks ass said:
> ...



Agree with the Halibag (Halifax) #5


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 27, 2005)

but the halibag proved itself extensively in combat........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 27, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but the halibag proved itself extensively in combat........



Agree - after that #6 - got to go with the B-25......


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 27, 2005)

i thought this was for heavy bombers?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 27, 2005)

Me too, If it was all bombers then The Mosquito would have been well up in the top 5...

Heavies, number 6 is a tricky one...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 27, 2005)

i'd assumed we'd stop at 5 you see 

what about the whitley


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 27, 2005)

Just because it was considered a heavy bomber initially, doesnt mean it is one.. 

The Fiat BR.20 was considered a heavy bomber. Really? Heavy? With 1,400 mile range and a 3,500lb payload?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 27, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i thought this was for heavy bombers?



It started out as best bomber, but you're right we're doing heavies....


Sorry CC - P.108?!?! I'd put the Petlyakov PE-8 in there, at least the thing dropped bombs on Berlin  

The P.108 never reached its full potential and had an astounding loss rate


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 27, 2005)

Well the P.108 wasnt supposed to drop bombs on Berlin 

I agree though it was underdeveloped. The B-29 is everything the P.108 could have been.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 27, 2005)

well first we'll have to see which planes iare in the running for 6th?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 27, 2005)

Stirling, P.108, Pe-8...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 27, 2005)

well the stirling has the longest combat record.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 27, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Well the P.108 wasnt supposed to drop bombs on Berlin.



I know, it it didn't drop bombs on very much!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 27, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well the stirling has the longest combat record.........



Stirling

PE-8

P.108 (Just becuase we're running out of heavy bombers)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 27, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> I agree though it was underdeveloped. The B-29 is everything the P.108 could have been.


Maybe a big B-17, not even close to the -29!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 27, 2005)

yeah we really are short on heavies now


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 27, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yeah we really are short on heavies now



I know, we may have to mention the He-177


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 27, 2005)

we could be pedantic and go into individual marks of the aircraft already discussed


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 27, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> we could be pedantic and go into individual marks of the aircraft already discussed



Yep - we could compare the size of the pilot's seat between the B-17 and Lancaster!!!


----------



## plan_D (Dec 28, 2005)

TB-3 ... while not very good, it was a heavy bomber at least.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 28, 2005)

true, although i kinda like fb's idea


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2005)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2005)

Guys, guys, guys this list is great and all, and I happen to agree with the list so far as being:

B-29
Lancaster
B-17
B-24
Halifax 

and the list goes and goes but lets slow down here. Let syscom come in and exlain how that is all wrong because the flight sims say so.  

Sorry syscom I have to poke some fun.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Dec 28, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Guys, guys, guys this list is great and all, and I happen to agree with the list so far as being:
> 
> B-29
> Lancaster
> ...


I see the Hallie is getting a bum rap, again.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Guys, guys, guys this list is great and all, and I happen to agree with the list so far as being:
> ...



It was a great bomber but I think the -17 and -24 were better by the slightest margin...


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 28, 2005)

I was looking at the ranges the B24's were flying in the PTO and the B17 could not have flown them.

While its range in the ETO was sufficent, it was completly inadequate in the PTO.

I would agree about the B17 being #3 in the ETO, but it gets a big derating in the PTO.

For the PTO, the B24 and Lanc are still essentially tied. The longer range/payload of the Lanc being offset by its "potentially" higher loss rate.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Dec 28, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> [
> It was a great bomber but I think the -17 and -24 were better by the slightest margin...



Then that would put them in front of the Lanc. There was not much difference between a Lanc and a Hallie.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Lancaster was faster, flew higher, had a greater bomb load was produced in more numbers and was the spearhead of the RAF night bombardment of Germany. Although the Halifax served and performed admirably, it cannot hold close to the record of the -17 or -24. 

The B-24 was faster and had a greater range (2100 miles on a 5000 pound bomb load). The -17 flew higher, was more heavily armed and could absorb more punishment than all the above....

The record and survivability of the B-17 is well documented, the -24 served on every front and was the most numerous bomber ever produced (18,000+)....


----------



## KraziKanuK (Dec 28, 2005)

Halifax Mk III

General characteristics
Crew: 7 
Length: 71 ft 7 in (21.82 m) 
Wingspan: 104 ft 2 in (31.75 m) (98ft 8in - HP57 MKI) 
Height: 20 ft 9 in (6.32 m) 
Wing area: 1,190 ft² (110.6 m²) 
Loaded: 54,400 lb (24,675 kg) 
Powerplant: 4 x Bristol Hercules XVI radial engines, 1,615 hp ( kW) each 

Performance
Maximum speed: 282 mph at 13,500 ft (454 km/h at 4,115 m) 
Combat range: 1,860 miles (3,000 km) 
Rate of climb: 750 ft/min (229 m/min)
Service ceiling: 24,000 ft (7,315 m)

Lancaster

Maximum speed: 280 mph at 15,000 ft (448 km/h at 5,600 m) 
Combat range: 2,700 miles with minimal bomb load (4,320 km with minimal bomb load) 
Service ceiling 23,500 ft 8,160 m 
Empty: 36 828 lb 16,705 kg 
Loaded: 63,000 lb 28,636 kg


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2005)

The Lancaster could go up to 70,000 pounds (I think we're looking at the same site)

Type: Heavy Bomber
Origin: Avro
Models: Lancaster I to MR.7
Crew: Seven
First Flight: January 9, 1941
Service Delivery: September 1941
Final Delivery From New: February 2, 1946
Number Produced: 7,377 (430 Canadian built)
Mark I: 3,425
Mark II: 300
Mark III: 3,039

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powerplant: 
Lancaster Mk. I:
Model: Rolls-Royce Or Packard Merlin 20 or 22
Type: 12-Cylinder liquid cooled vee
Number: Four Horsepower: 1,460 hp

Lancaster Mk. II Only:
Model: Bristol Hercules VI
Type: 14-Cylinder two-row, sleeve-valve radials
Number: Four Horsepower: 1,650 hp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions: Lancaster Mk. I
Wing span: 102 ft. (31.1m)
Length: 69 ft. 4 in. (21.1m)
Height: 19 ft. 7 in. (5.97m)
Wing Surface Area: N/A
Weights: Lancaster Mk. I 
Empty: 36,900 lb. (16,705 kg)
Loaded: 68,000 lb. (30,800 kg)
Overload with 22,000 lb. Bomb:
70,000 lb. (31,750 kg)

Performance: Lancaster Mk. I
Maximum Speed at 11,500 ft. (3500m):
287 mph (462 km/h)
Cruising Speed: 210 mph (338 km/h)
Climb to 20,000 ft. (6095m) at max. load:
41 Minutes
Service Ceiling: 24,500 ft. (7467m)
Range with 14,000 lb. (6350 kg.) bomb load:
1,660 miles (2675 km) 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armament:
Nose and dorsal turrets (sometimes also ventral) with two .303 in. Brownings (some including Mk. VII, had Martin dorsal turret with two .50 in. Brownings), tail turret with four .303 in. Brownings.

Payload:
14,000 lb. (6350 kg.) in 33 ft. (10.06m) bomb bay.
With modification can accept 22,000 lb. (9979 kg.)


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 28, 2005)

What would the payload of a Lanc be if it flew a mission to a target 1300 miles away (2600 mile RT)?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2005)

Well you have a 1660 mile range with a 14000 pound bomb load

I would guesstimate a 2600 mile mission might get you 10000 pounds?!?

I have a Lanc pilots manual on CD - I'll see if there any range charts...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 28, 2005)

You have a Lanc pilot's manual? Cool. 8)


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 28, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> You have a Lanc pilot's manual? Cool. 8)


Very! 8) Lanc will be jealous!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 28, 2005)

Hell, even _I'm_ a little jealous. 
I'm no pilot, but still.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2005)

Yea, but I just discovered the CD only has half of it downloaded, all the performance information is missing


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2005)

I have several pilots manual (Pilot's notes) on this CD I bought on e bay several years ago.

A-26 
Fighters 
I-13 PDF
I-13 Word 
ME 109 
Spitfire F XII 

A-10 
Luftwaffe
/ Original 
IL 2 
MiG 21 
Spitfire IIA e IIB 

AN 2 
Japanese Aircraft
Photos 
JU 87 B2
/ 2 / 3 / 4 
MiG 29 
Spitfire IX / XI / XVI 

B-17 (Images) / Original 
Gelicopter / Original 
LA 5 
Mosquito FB 6 
TU - 2 

Spitfire VA - VB - VC 
Spitfire XIV / XIX 
SU-27 
SU - 29 
Tempest II


Beaufighter 
Guglia / Word Files (in russian) 
LA 5 - FN 
Mustang 
Typhoon 1A - 1B 

BF 109
BF 109 (english) 
Horten Ho-229
(photos) 
LA 7 - ISP 
P-38 
Wellington III / X / XI / XII / XIII / XIV 

Curtiss P40
Warhawk 
Hunter MK 74A 
Lancaster 
P-39 Q1 
Yak 18 

F-40 U Corsair
Original 
Hurricane 
LG 3 
Seafire 45 / 46 
Other Manuals 

Tempest V 2
/ 3 / 4 / 5 
Buffalo 
Photo Galery


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 28, 2005)

why would i be jealous, i have an entire copy in print in my room 

and for a 2,600mile round trip you're looking at 7,000lbs............



> The Lancaster could go up to 70,000 pounds



if we're going to be picky it's 72,000lbs overload weight for the Mk.I specail.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> why would i be jealous, i have an entire copy in print in my room



Why am I not surprised!  


the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and for a 2,600mile round trip you're looking at 7,000lbs............





> The Lancaster could go up to 70,000 pounds





the lancaster kicks ass said:


> if we're going to be picky it's 72,000lbs overload weight for the Mk.I specail.........



I'm missing from page 46 on - is that data on P48?


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 28, 2005)

One more question...... bombload for a 3200 mile mission.

And do these bombloads reflect fuel reserves for about 1 hour?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 28, 2005)

FB said:


> I'm missing from page 46 on - is that data on P48



no, my own memory 

i have no figures for 3,200 miles but i'd estimate about 4,000lbs, possibly more, and i'm afraid i am uncertain about the fuel reserves........


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 28, 2005)

That doesn't surprise me Lanc, it is interesting to read what it (the manual) has to say all the same.

Syscom: I would say around 3000-4000lbs maybe less around 2500lbs for a mission that long.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> FB said:
> 
> 
> > I'm missing from page 46 on - is that data on P48
> ...



And why does THAT not surprise me!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 28, 2005)

Gnomey said:


> Syscom: I would say around 3000-4000lbs maybe less around 2500lbs for a mission that long.



how dare you underestimate the powers of the dark si.....i mean lancaster


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 28, 2005)

I was only going roughly on your value for the 2600 mile mission. Although I will admit you will know what it can and can't do a lot better than me , I would say though the higher value would have been more likely. Where there any missions flown by the Lancaster that were that long? I know there were some long mission just not any details.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 28, 2005)

i can't say from memory, i'll try and look tonight.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i can't say from memory, i'll try and look tonight.........



And while you're at it I want to know how many pounds of fuel will be used to fly 100 miles and climb to 17,500.'


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 28, 2005)

do you realise how bloody small these charts are


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 28, 2005)

12,000 feet is sufficent. And include some extra weight for jungle/ocean survival kits, plus an extra pilot.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> do you realise how bloody small these charts are



YEA!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 28, 2005)

> ocean survival kits



these were already carried over europe??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > do you realise how bloody small these charts are
> ...



Actually it's on P31!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 28, 2005)

then you bloody look


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> then you bloody look



I did -


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 28, 2005)

then pust the figures and put us all outta our misery.......


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2005)

600 pounds (US)

Now Lanc, as the resident Lancaster expert I expect you to know this stuff and to quickly and accurately read those charts. If they are too small I will gladly send you a magnifier!  

I also expect you to recite the table of contents backwards!  

Get with it lad!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 28, 2005)

well it's all the way upstairs


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well it's all the way upstairs



Tell me you're not lazy now?!? Maybe CC will have to answer that!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 28, 2005)

lazy! i spent half the day shoveling several tons of corn!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> lazy! i spent half the day shoveling several tons of corn!



My god! Tell me you're not messing with those farm animals again!


----------



## KraziKanuK (Dec 28, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 600 pounds (US)



That is Imperial gallons, not American gallons, since it is from a British manual.  It is 500lb American.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 28, 2005)

what exactily does shoveling corn have to do with fiddling with animals


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > 600 pounds (US)
> ...



Very true! - Good observation! =D>


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> what exactily does shoveling corn have to do with fiddling with animals



You must be feeding the corn to something?!?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 28, 2005)

we were putting it into trailers  i was in the corn bin for most of the time........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> we were putting it into trailers  i was in the corn bin for most of the time........



Trailers?!? My god are you smuggling corn?!?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 28, 2005)

you really are scraping the barrel for laughs now aren't you


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 28, 2005)

So whats the payload for a Lanc on a 3200 mile mission with a max altitude of 12,000 ft?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 28, 2005)

like i said, i'll try to find out later tonight........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> you really are scraping the barrel for laughs now aren't you



I guess so....


----------



## KraziKanuK (Dec 28, 2005)

Here we use machines and gravity to load corn in 'wagons'.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> So whats the payload for a Lanc on a 3200 mile mission with a max altitude of 12,000 ft?



He's gonna have to look at those tiny charts!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 28, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Here we use machines and gravity to load corn in 'wagons'.



wagons, i thought they were flat bed 

and we use augers but when you reach the bottom of the corn bin there's always allot that even gravity can't get to the bottom of the auger, so it's my job to help it along


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 28, 2005)

Ah, what could be more exciting than farm talk, eh? 

...Well, just about anything I guess. 
Hmmm, think I'll go watch some paint dry.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 28, 2005)

hey, farmers dig farm talk, infact i had quite an interesting discussion about it with my friend's girlfriend the other day, can you believe it, i gave her the link for the page where i posted the pics of our tractors, then the next day when she was plaiting ym hair she said they were old


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 28, 2005)

Cool! 



Not.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 28, 2005)

would you like to hear about the time i got my finger crushed? or we almost rolled down a hill to our doom because of a muck spreader


----------



## KraziKanuK (Dec 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> would you like to hear about the time i got my finger crushed? or we almost rolled down a hill to our doom because of a muck spreader



Serves you right for putting your finger where it is not suppose to be.  The hay loft with the girlfriend can....... . Seriously lanc, farms are dangerous work places. Is muck another word for manure? Muck is just mud, here.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 29, 2005)

you'd get torn apart for calling muck mud!! they're totally different! mud is just earth mixed in with water and is hated and has no real use, muck is manure, which is obviously very useful! and i know farms are dangerous  i almost got impaled on a bale spike once!

but anyway, the lanc, i've been looking at the tiny charts, and can conclude that, with overload fuel tanks in the bomb bay (or in the fusilage as were sometimes carried) she could comfortably manage as 3,200 mile round trip with fuel for an emergency, with a payload between 4,000 and 2,000lbs at 20,000ft (the charts only gave the data for 20,000ft), and that includes the fuel used on the climb...........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but anyway, the lanc, i've been looking at the tiny charts, and can conclude that, with overload fuel tanks in the bomb bay (or in the fusilage as were sometimes carried) she could comfortably manage as 3,200 mile round trip with fuel for an emergency, with a payload between 4,000 and 2,000lbs at 20,000ft (the charts only gave the data for 20,000ft), and that includes the fuel used on the climb...........



GOOD MAN!!! You will be tested periodically...  

Just a side note - during the war when these charts were used many times an extra 30 to 45 minutes were also factored in (formation assembly, weather, fighter and flak, etc.)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 29, 2005)

when these charts were drawn up the climbing chart factored into account the formation (what little of it the british did) but the lancs were limited to 5 minutes "combat" like they're gonna say during an attack "well skipper that's our 5 minutes up" 

and the british used the general figure of 1 gallon of 100 octane weighed 7.2lbs...........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and the british used the general figure of 1 gallon of 100 octane weighed 7.2lbs...........



Hmmm - Avgas (100-130 or 100-130LL) weight is calculated at 6 pounds per gallon; Jet A (jet fuel) at 6.84 pounds per gallon. The weights are accepted averages based on specific gravity and other variables, such as temperature and additives due to climate.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 29, 2005)

well the manual states that the ground crews should assume the figure 7.2lbs per gallon of 100 octane.........


----------



## plan_D (Dec 29, 2005)

Maybe it states that for some lee-way ... it's like setting your watch fast, so you're never late.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well the manual states that the ground crews should assume the figure 7.2lbs per gallon of 100 octane.........



Don't know where they came up with that - I know today 6 pounds per gallon is internationally accepted - Imperial Gallon vs a US gallon is my guess?!?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 29, 2005)

possibly?


----------



## KraziKanuK (Dec 29, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Don't know where they came up with that - I know today 6 pounds per gallon is internationally accepted - Imperial Gallon vs a US gallon is my guess?!?



1 Imp gal = 1.55l = 1.2 US gal
1 U.S. gallon = 0.833 Imp gal

6lb / .833 = 7.2lb


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Don't know where they came up with that - I know today 6 pounds per gallon is internationally accepted - Imperial Gallon vs a US gallon is my guess?!?
> ...



BINGO!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 29, 2005)

well where does the conversation go from here


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well where does the conversation go from here



Here ya go....

http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/conversions.html


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 29, 2005)

oh great, a conversion site, that'll help the best bomber threat along


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> oh great, a conversion site, that'll help the best bomber threat along


Sure, we could convert miles to Kilometers, Kilograms to pounds, gallons to liters (US Gallons and Imp. Gallons) WHAT FUN!

This will give you great practice for reading those performance charts Lanc!

Actually, should we go to the best Medium Bomber now?!?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 29, 2005)

well medium bomber's too broad, what about just saying twin engined bomber? cos otherwise where does the mossie go? although in saying that i think we do need some way to separate the strategic bombers (wellingtons, He-111s) from the attack bombers.......


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well medium bomber's too broad, what about just saying twin engined bomber? cos otherwise where does the mossie go? although in saying that i think we do need some way to separate the strategic bombers (wellingtons, He-111s) from the attack bombers.......



Agree - We'll have to make 2 categories - strategic medium and attack medium, although you may have some cross over (B-25 for example)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 29, 2005)

i'm more worried about the mossie, the RAF used her in so many bombing roles but she was classed as a fast bomber, which really could mean either.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2005)

Yep - but I think her role would be considered more tactical than stategic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 29, 2005)

but that's the thing she was sued to some extent as both


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but that's the thing she was sued to some extent as both



In my mind using a bomber (any bomber) strategically means you have a long term plan for a continual mission (the bombing of German industry and military installations) based on an attack doctrine (high altitude precision bombing, night area saturation bombing, etc.) Tactical in my mind means a plan or "tactic" tailored for a short term plan (targets of opportunity, support of moving troops etc.) or a special operation, bombing of heavy water plants, the attack on the prison at Amiens, etc. Make sense?!?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 29, 2005)

yeah but like i said the mossie was used to some extent as a strateigic bomber.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yeah but like i said the mossie was used to some extent as a strateigic bomber.........



How? It usually ran low and quick and attacked targets quickly chosen (airfields, ships, trains, things dynamic in nature). Now in a pathfinder or a post raid recon role for the heavies, I would agree.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 29, 2005)

but she often supported lancs dropping cookies........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but she often supported lancs dropping cookies........



Do you mean as a pathfinder?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 29, 2005)

the pathfinders didn't really drop cookies, they dropped cookies sometimes in the same role as the lanc, sometimes as a diversion.......


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> the pathfinders didn't really drop cookies, they dropped cookies sometimes in the same role as the lanc, sometimes as a diversion.......



But I doubt the were on the deck - but agree in that role definitely strategic.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Dec 29, 2005)

The Mossies of the LNSF (8 Group) were not a pathfinders. Flying 27,239 missions mostly to Berlin, sometimes 2 in one night, and only had 108 'fail to return'.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 29, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> ....., with overload fuel tanks in the bomb bay (or in the fusilage as were sometimes carried) she could comfortably manage as 3,200 mile round trip with fuel for an emergency, with a payload between 4,000 and 2,000lbs at 20,000ft (the charts only gave the data for 20,000ft), and that includes the fuel used on the climb...........



Thats similar to the figures I saw for the 380th BG raids on Blaikpapin in Aug 1943. They had a 3000 lbs payload with enough spare fuel for a 1 hour reserve.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 29, 2005)

fair enough, anything else you'd like to add?


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 29, 2005)

They needed two pilots due the mission being 15 hours long, plus three distinct weather fronts were encountered where both pilots had to be at the controls. In addition, a few of the bombers were intercepted by Japanese fighters and luckily drove them off with their .50 cals.

Simulations show that the Lancs would have had a higher loss rate if they encountered the same conditions.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 30, 2005)

what simulations? and many tiger force lancs were fitted with .50cals, and i believe there was a removable plate on the side of the pilot's controll column that allowed the adition of a second set of controlls, if it means that much to you, and do all them figures still mean nothing to you?


----------



## KraziKanuK (Dec 30, 2005)

Just shows how good Lanc pilots were and how easy it was to fly a Lanc. If the Brits thought the Lanc needed a 2cd pilot, he would have been added.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> They needed two pilots due the mission being 15 hours long, plus three distinct weather fronts were encountered where both pilots had to be at the controls. In addition, a few of the bombers were intercepted by Japanese fighters and luckily drove them off with their .50 cals.
> 
> Simulations show that the Lancs would have had a higher loss rate if they encountered the same conditions.



Did your simulations consider the dwindling numbers of Japanese fighters and the inexperience of those remaining pilots? I think if the war would of lasted any longer, any Japanese military aviation would of been confined to the Japanese mainland, and even then numbers an skill levels would of been dismal to say the least...

The Lancaster would of performed well in the PTO...



KraziKanuK said:


> Just shows how good Lanc pilots were and how easy it was to fly a Lanc. If the Brits thought the Lanc needed a 2cd pilot, he would have been added.



It has nothing to do about being "good." Any American bomber could of been flown with one pilot - it was decided that a 2 man flight crew would handle the workload better and provide a measure of safety, evidently the Air Ministry didn't agree. Although Lancaster pilots performed just as well if not better than their American counterparts, I believe there would of been many more Lancaster crews around today had the Lancaster had a dedicated co-pilot.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 30, 2005)

Japanese pilot quality throughout 1943 was still pretty good.

"Tiger" force Lancs were in mid 1945 not in 1943. But it didnt matter at that time as the B32's could have been deployed which were probably better than the Lanc

My simulation comment was sure to attract attention


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Japanese pilot quality throughout 1943 was still pretty good.



And that's why FEAFs had up to a 10 to 1 kill ratio against them?!?!



syscom3 said:


> "Tiger" force Lancs were in mid 1945 not in 1943. But it didnt matter at that time as the B32's could have been deployed which were probably better than the Lanc
> 
> My simulation comment was sure to attract attention



That I agree...


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 30, 2005)

Japanese records indicate that the FEAF claims in 1942 and 1943 were exagerated to a considerable degree. 

Plus, many of the Japanese loss's (that did occur) happened towards the very end of 1943 and early 1944 with the big air battles over eastern New Guinie and Rabaul. 

The IJA and IJN had squadrons stationed in the Dutch East Indies well into 1944. Their role was primarily to intercept US and Aussie bombers operating in that region. One thing I noticed in reading about the IJA/IJN pilots is the more experience they had, the higher the probability they would end up staying alive....just like the German pilots.

Of course quite a few ended up being wasted in the Kamikazi's, but that wasnt untill late 1944.

Those Japanese pilots who were left behind in the Dutch East Indies, tended to be experienced. And on the occasion that they could get a fighter in the air, they performed well.

In the book "Morotai", the author related on how he was prevented from going on a solo mission from the PI over to Vietnam (in early 1945), as the IJA forces there were equiped with Ki-84's (I think it was that) and the pilots were good. He was told either he goes in a squadron, or not at all. It ended up a good idea as a group that did go over there that day did lose a few B24's to intercepting fighters. Makes you wonder how the Lanc would have held up?

My whole point to this is, the allied fighters ended up getting many of the verifiable kills against inexperienced pilots. The ones they didnt get were quite experienced. And when they were in the air with a capable fighter, they could be deadly opponants.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Japanese records indicate that the FEAF claims in 1942 and 1943 were exagerated to a considerable degree.
> 
> Plus, many of the Japanese loss's (that did occur) happened towards the very end of 1943 and early 1944 with the big air battles over eastern New Guinie and Rabaul.



Show me - if they were so exagerated why did they (the Japanese) loose control over the skies over Rabual, Guadalcanal, and New Guinea which ultimately led them getting kicked out of the Philippines. Even if you split the stats posted in half, the Japanese losses were devastating.


syscom3 said:


> The IJA and IJN had squadrons stationed in the Dutch East Indies well into 1944. Their role was primarily to intercept US and Aussie bombers operating in that region. One thing I noticed in reading about the IJA/IJN pilots is the more experience they had, the higher the probability they would end up staying alive....just like the German pilots.


And look at their scores during that period, the IJA and IJN was nothing more than a nuisance at that point...


syscom3 said:


> Of course quite a few ended up being wasted in the Kamikazi's, but that wasnt untill late 1944.


True but many Kamikazes were drawn from training ranks by then...


syscom3 said:


> Those Japanese pilots who were left behind in the Dutch East Indies, tended to be experienced. And on the occasion that they could get a fighter in the air, they performed well.


Far and few as history played out...


syscom3 said:


> In the book "Morotai", the author related on how he was prevented from going on a solo mission from the PI over to Vietnam (in early 1945), as the IJA forces there were equiped with Ki-84's (I think it was that) and the pilots were good. He was told either he goes in a squadron, or not at all. It ended up a good idea as a group that did go over there that day did lose a few B24's to intercepting fighters. Makes you wonder how the Lanc would have held up?


A few? Look up FEAFs B-24 losses, they were next to nothing when compared to the European theater, mainly becuase the Japanese didn't have the planes to throw up against the bombers....

My wife's grandfather was in the 30th BG 819th BS - I read their history, from 1943 to 1945 you could almost count on two hands their losses to enemy fighters. During that time they bombed their way from Kwajalein to Siapan....


syscom3 said:


> My whole point to this is, the allied fighters ended up getting many of the verifiable kills against inexperienced pilots.


And what happened to the experienced pilots at Midway? 



syscom3 said:


> The ones they didnt get were quite experienced. And when they were in the air with a capable fighter, they could be deadly opponants.



Agree, but that holds true anywhere


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 30, 2005)

> Show me - if thing were so exagerated why did they (the Japanese) loose control over the skies over Rabual, Guadalcanal, and New Guinea which ultimately led them getting kicked out of the Philippines. Even if you split the stats posted in half, the Japanese losses were devastating.



The Japanese airforce was still in strength well up to the end of 1943. After the start of 1944, then the whole thing fell apart.

And my source book for Japanese Loss's is for the IJN. It has an interesting appendix which compares the loss's of the IJN to that of the USAAF. It was astonishing to see how exagerated the claims for both sides were. 

And yes the Japanese loss's were devestating. It was a combination of loss's in the air, lots of loss's on the ground and a breakdown of their logistics needed to keep them flying. But all three of those didnt occur untill late 1943. Remember, we didnt even take Bougainville untill Dec 1943 or The Admiralties untill Feb 1944. Untill those bases were taken, the Japanese air threat was still real.




> Far and few as history played out...



Agreed. I didnt mean to say there were a lot of them.



> A few? Look up FEAFs B-24 losses, they were next to nothing when compared to the European theater, mainly becuase the Japanese didn't have the planes to throw up against the bombers....



To the allied airplane that was about to be shot down by a Japanese fighter piloted by an experienced pilot, it was a "few" too many.



> My wife's grandfather was in the 30th BG 819th BS - I read their history, from 1943 to 1945 you could almost count on two hands their losses to enemy fighters. During that time they bombed their way from Kwajalein to Siapan....



Thanks to the USN, the central pacific was wiped clean of all Japanese airforces. Flyboy, I know you are aware that the PTO covered a good chunk of the planet. There were five distinct area's where the air ops took place. Just because the 30th BG in the central pacific rarely (if ever) came up against a Japanese fighter, doesnt mean the 308th BG in the CBI or the 380th in the Western NG area or the 90th BG over eastern NG didnt come up against them.



> And what happened to the experienced pilots at Midway? .



Most of the fighter pilots were in the air when the three carriers were bombed. The torpedo and dive bombers crews took most of those bad loss's

My whole point is on the infrequent occasions when the allied pilots came up against an experienced pilot flying one of the later model fighters, they had their hands full. On plenty of occasions, the bombers took a few loss's. Nothing that would crimp operations, but a loss either way you count it. 

My question is if the B24's were just barely able to defend themselves against Japanese fighters, how could a Lanc with inferior defensive firepower do the same?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> My question is if the B24's were just barely able to defend themselves against Japanese fighters, how could a Lanc with inferior defensive firepower do the same?



Barely able to defend themselves?!? That's hogwash! Again look at how many -24 were lost to fighters. It was more dangerous flying over water or through tropical thunderstorms!!

Look at the chart above - the worst loss of heavy bombers in a single month was 24?!? - Over Europe that was a great month!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 30, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> My simulation comment was sure to attract attention



That is because you playing a Lancaster on Microsoft Flight Simulater does not prove anything, especially when you have invulnerable and difficulty level set to weakling.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 30, 2005)

> Look at the chart above - the worst loss of heavy bombers in a single month was 24?!? - Over Europe that was a great month!!!



sometimes that was a good night! 

and sys at the moment all you keep saying is that the japs had 

1) a large airforce at the end of 1943

2) some experienced pilots that were very good

in responce to 1) that may be so, but how many of those planes were all in the same area and ready to be sent up on an interception at any point? the entire airforce isn't going to be sent up at the same time........

and for 2) yes, but again these weren't all operating in the same area at the same time, you're unlikely to come up against one of the true greats and how many bombers are they going to be able to shoot down in one sortie?? they'd be lucky to get two and some losses are always going to be expected on most missions

and you go on about the lancs defensive armourment (which on tiger force lancs would include .50cals), atleast the lanc didn't have a davies wing, a few hits and you'd loose most of a wing! no radials can save you if you haven't got a wing for them to go on


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 30, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> sometimes that was a good night!
> 
> and sys at the moment all you keep saying is that the japs had
> 
> ...



Well if that is an arguement then put it this way. The Lancaster flew in Europe. The Germans had a larger airforce than the Japanese did and had more experienced pilots than the Japs did.

If you say well that is different because the Lanc flew at night, well the Germans had better nightfighters and better night fighting technology than the Japs did.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 30, 2005)

> Look at the chart above - the worst loss of heavy bombers in a single month was 24?!? - Over Europe that was a great month!!!



The US only had a few bomb groups available in the PTO. Plus the number of sorties was far less than the ETO due to the weather and logistics situation. (1942 and 1943). Of course far fewer planes were shot down because far fewer were flying at any given time.



> in responce to 1) that may be so, but how many of those planes were all in the same area and ready to be sent up on an interception at any point? the entire airforce isn't going to be sent up at the same time........



I dont really know how to answer your first comment. Untill 1944, both the Japanese and Allies had to disperse their airforces amongst an extremely large area. If the Japanese at Rabaul could only scramble 70 fighters, that was offset that the USAAF could only send 60 or so B24's.



> and you go on about the lancs defensive armourment (which on tiger force lancs would include .50cals), atleast the lanc didn't have a davies wing, a few hits and you'd loose most of a wing! no radials can save you if you haven't got a wing for them to go on



If only a few B24's could be expected to be lost on each mission if intercepted by Japanese fighters, then the Lancs would lose a dozen. Lets face it, .303's are inferior to .50's. And if a solid hit in the wing causes the davis wing to fold up, then I say a solid hit in the cockpit would kill the only pilot on board. And with a radial being hit, at least the pilots didnt have to worry about a coolant leak a thousand miles from base over an unforgiving ocean and jungle.

The fact is the bombers of the PTO had to do a lot of missions unescorted. In fact the 380th BG didnt have any escorts untill a year after they started flying missions. This is important as the B24 had a far better chance flying without fighter cover than the Lanc did.

And your "tiger force" was not even thought of untill 1945, well after the war had been decided. In fact at that time, you probably didnt even need many defensive guns. If you insist that the Lanc should be judged as being the Tiger Force model, I say the B24 gets multiple bonus points for being far easier to build.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 30, 2005)

Well I just added jet engines to my Lancaster and a 2nd pilot, so there mines better and it can beat yours up!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 30, 2005)

> And if a solid hit in the wing causes the davis wing to fold up, then I say a solid hit in the cockpit would kill the only pilot on board



a "solid" hit in the cockpit would take out everyone in the cockpit of any plane, including pilots, co-pilots and flight engineers, and if the jap pilots are as good as you say then they would do what most pilots do when attacking 4-engined heavies, go for the wings! that's where the engines and fuel are, that's what a pilot would go for, remember if they go for the fusilage they stand the chance of setting off bombs, which is likely to kill the attacking fighter if he's close enough.............



> And with a radial being hit, at least the pilots didnt have to worry about a coolant leak a thousand miles from base over an unforgiving ocean and jungle



not only could the lanc fly long distances happily on 3 engines but remember the Mk.II lancaster we spoke about? some lovely radials there! 



> The fact is the bombers of the PTO had to do a lot of missions unescorted. In fact the 380th BG didnt have any escorts untill a year after they started flying missions. This is important as the B24 had a far better chance flying without fighter cover than the Lanc did.



lancs had little/no escort over Europe??



> If you insist that the Lanc should be judged as being the Tiger Force model, I say the B24 gets multiple bonus points for being far easier to build



now hold on one cotton picking minute, what source are you using for the B-24 being easier to build? do you actually have anything to back that claim up?

and are you aware of the differences between lancasters? judging from your lack of knowledge of the Mk.II i'll guess not, when i refer to Tiger force lancs that's just a term for the lancs prepared to go out to the pacific, they were mostly Mk.Is and Mk.IIIs woth some Mk.VIIs, most planes were operational throughout the war, only very minor modifications were made to the lancs that served over europe for their intended use over the pacific, most of the planes in the tiger force were first built for use over europe then converted for the PTO, very few Mk.I(FE)s were perpose built.............


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 30, 2005)

and actually you raise a very good point adler, about the lanc being so versatile and having such great load carrying ability she was used as a testbed of choice for numerous piston and jet engines................


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 30, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well I just added jet engines to my Lancaster and a 2nd pilot, so there mines better and it can beat yours up!



Simulations show that the B32 was just as effective using piston engines, and your Lanc still wasnt as good as the B29!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 30, 2005)

that simulations thing's getting old now...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 30, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Well I just added jet engines to my Lancaster and a 2nd pilot, so there mines better and it can beat yours up!
> ...



Alright now. What fricken simulations are you talking about? I dont know of any simulations except for your own, which carry absolutly no weight at all, what so ever!

You show me some sources for these simulations or stop bring them up, because you playing at your PC does not hold up.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 30, 2005)

> a "solid" hit in the cockpit would take out everyone in the cockpit of any plane, including pilots, co-pilots and flight engineers, and if the jap pilots are as good as you say then they would do what most pilots do when attacking 4-engined heavies, go for the wings! that's where the engines and fuel are, that's what a pilot would go for, remember if they go for the fusilage they stand the chance of setting off bombs, which is likely to kill the attacking fighter if he's close enough.............



A hit in the cockpit has far more potential of causing problems with a single pilot than two pilots. And bullets when fired tend to have a mind of their own when being fired. Where you aim at is not necessarily where it hits.



> not only could the lanc fly long distances happily on 3 engines but remember the Mk.II lancaster we spoke about? some lovely radials there!



Anytime you lose an engine on a big plane its cause for concern. Could it fly on three engines? Sure. For how long? Only fate can determine that. The simple fact here is a liguid cooled engine is more vulnerable to damage than an air cooled one. On long ranges, the radial engines are far more reliable. And if you loose a cooling line on takeoff for any random reason, then your mission is over. Ive never heard of an air cooled engine forcing a an early end to a mission due to a coolant leak.



> lancs had little/no escort over Europe??



Lancs flew at night negating the need for extensive fighter escort. If you say that the Lanc would then fly missions in the PTO at night, that means the B24 wins for being able to perform missions night and day.




> now hold on one cotton picking minute, what source are you using for the B-24 being easier to build? do you actually have anything to back that claim up?



Nearly 19,000 B24's were built. At one point, the Willow Run assembly plant was producing one B24 every hour. Imagine that, a group of B24's every two days.



> now hold on one cotton picking minute



hehehhehe, I havent heard that phrase in awhile  



> Alright now. What fricken simulations are you talking about? I dont know of any simulations except for your own, which carry absolutly no weight at all, what so ever!
> 
> You show me some sources for these simulations or stop bring them up, because you playing at your PC does not hold up.



Simulations show that simulations are vaild. besides, why do you suppose the simulations have to be on a PC?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 30, 2005)

Then tell me who made the simulations and what the source was? All you say is simulations and until you can give sources they are not valid. Sorry but your simulations are being thrown out the window here. They are getting old and I will show you an example of how your simulations sound.

_Simulations have shown that the B-29 would have been vulnerable to the colder temperatures at high alltitudes over Europe because the engines would freeze._

No that thing I just said up there is not true or meant to be taken seriously, but it sounds just like yours. Made up to support your ideas so show some sources here for your simulations and not ones that you made up!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 30, 2005)

> A hit in the cockpit has far more potential of causing problems with a single pilot than two pilots



if you're hitting the cockpit with machine guns and cannon then you're going to put more than one shell in the cockpit, you're going to put several in there, easily killing both pilots...........



> And bullets when fired tend to have a mind of their own when being fired. Where you aim at is not necessarily where it hits



that is true however the margins of movement away from the point of aim aren't going to cause bullets to land in the cockpit if aimed at the wings, members with experience with machine guns will back me up on that one.......

and you managed to reply to my point about the engines without even making allowance for the RADIAL ENGINED LANCASTERS THAT DID EXIST AND DID SEE EXTENSIVE SERVICE..........



> Lancs flew at night negating the need for extensive fighter escort



firstly she was designed as a night bomber, secondly does that mean that the fighters she was up against were any worse than by day? large radar guided killers with numerous large cannon and rediculously intense flak if you're "coned" in spotlights sounds pretty bad.........



> Nearly 19,000 B24's were built



that is not an argument for the B-24 being easier to build



> At one point, the Willow Run assembly plant was producing one B24 every hour



at times lancs were being produced one an hour  or that's what they say, is it true for either plane? unlikely, just a propagander tool.......

and what about the B-24's versatility? what range of weapons could that tiny weapons bay hold? how easily modified was she for different roles?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 30, 2005)

Lanc, simulations prove that all that is wrong.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 30, 2005)




----------



## syscom3 (Dec 30, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Then tell me who made the simulations and what the source was? All you say is simulations and until you can give sources they are not valid. Sorry but your simulations are being thrown out the window here. They are getting old and I will show you an example of how your simulations sound.
> 
> _Simulations have shown that the B-29 would have been vulnerable to the colder temperatures at high alltitudes over Europe because the engines would freeze._
> 
> No that thing I just said up there is not true or meant to be taken seriously, but it sounds just like yours. Made up to support your ideas so show some sources here for your simulations and not ones that you made up!



B29's were used successfully in Alaska right after the war. I have never heard of engine problems like that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 30, 2005)

Read my post completly before replying to it. *I said that is was not true or meant to be taken seriously*. I was showing you what your simulations posts are correct because you can never tell what simulation or who, what, where, when.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 30, 2005)

i think he just does it for laughs, not really working


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 30, 2005)

It is extremely annoying.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 30, 2005)

> if you're hitting the cockpit with machine guns and cannon then you're going to put more than one shell in the cockpit, you're going to put several in there, easily killing both pilots...........



Plenty of instances in the USAAF when one of the two pilots was killed and the other still flew the mission. Of course a well aimed burst could kill both. But the Lanc was vulnerable because of only one pilot.



> that is true however the margins of movement away from the point of aim aren't going to cause bullets to land in the cockpit if aimed at the wings, members with experience with machine guns will back me up on that one.......



If your at point blank range, you will probably hit it. If your at longer ranges coming in at different angles, plus the normal dispersion of the bullets, then your going to hit a lot more than what you were aiming at.



> and you managed to reply to my point about the engines without even making allowance for the RADIAL ENGINED LANCASTERS THAT DID EXIST AND DID SEE EXTENSIVE SERVICE..........



I was giving thought to it. Since the radial engined Lancs was an extensive modification, I didnt think it would be fair to compare it to the B24 without it getting a significent modification in return. That would be like me comparing a B32 to a Merlin engined Lanc. A minor modification would be something like new gun turrets, or even adding another pilot station.



> firstly she was designed as a night bomber, secondly does that mean that the fighters she was up against were any worse than by day? large radar guided killers with numerous large cannon and rediculously intense flak if you're "coned" in spotlights sounds pretty bad.........



I'm not aware of the RAF using massed fighter escort at night as the 8th used during the day. 



> that is not an argument for the B-24 being easier to build



Being able to produce that many bombers within a couple of years sure is an indication of its ease of manufacture. Is there any other way to describe it?



> at times lancs were being produced one an hour  or that's what they say, is it true for either plane? unlikely, just a propagander tool.......



Thats not propaganda. Its a fact. Actually it was close to one every 56 minutes, which corresponds to 25.7 per day.



> and what about the B-24's versatility? what range of weapons could that tiny weapons bay hold? how easily modified was she for different roles?



As well as its bombing role, It was used as a tanker, transport, photo recon and maritime patrol. Although the extra large bomb bay of the lanc did allow it to carry over sized bombs, the jury's still out whether it was worth the effort to build and use them.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 30, 2005)

Okay and what about the Vulnerability of the B-24 to catching fire. More vulnerable than the Lanc.

I think the argument has passed you syscom. I think we are debating which aircraft would be 6th right now.

It was agreed on by just about everone:

1. B-29
2. Lancaster
3. B-17
4. B-24
5. Halifax
6. ?????


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Okay and what about the Vulnerability of the B-24 to catching fire. More vulnerable than the Lanc.
> 
> I think the argument has passed you syscom. I think we are debating which aircraft would be 6th right now.
> 
> ...



Sterling.......


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 30, 2005)

I would agree with that FBJ, I see no other viable candidiate although I'm sure CC will make a case for the P-108...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2005)

Gnomey said:


> I would agree with that FBJ, I see no other viable candidiate although I'm sure CC will make a case for the P-108...



The P.108 had potential, but its actual record was less then dismal. Had it played out it might of been close to say the B-17, but I think that's pushing it. I consider it one of Mussolini's "Paper Tiger" weapons... 

Although the Sterling had its limitations, it was there in the thick of the initial RAF bombing of Germany and when it's limitations were apparent, served well as a glider tow and transport aircraft. 

Although the Luftwaffe used 3 of the transport versions of the P.108, they had most of the combat versions fall into their hands after Italy fell - they basically parked them...


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 30, 2005)

It looks like none of you can handle the fact the Lanc couldnt operate in the PTO as well as the B24.

Plus the B17 was proven to not be able to operate effectively in the PTO means it should be 3rd at best.

And the Lanc was just as prone to catching fire as the B24.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> It looks like none of you can handle the fact the Lanc couldnt operate in the PTO as well as the B24.


It it because it's propellers rotate opposite from American Bombers? 


syscom3 said:


> Plus the B17 was proven to not be able to operate effectively in the PTO means it should be 3rd at best.


You're talking about early models - it was decided the -17 was more suited and needed for the ETO, nothing magical...


syscom3 said:


> And the Lanc was just as prone to catching fire as the B24.



The -24 was notorious for catching fire, ask any -24 crew. If you saw my thread about my Uncles, Uncle Joe was a B-24 bombardier. He distinctively told me the thing was a giant fume can. So bad were some of the transfer valve leaks in the bomb bays crews actually cracked the bomb bay doors during take off and landings. That was generic through the entire B-24 fleet in all theaters.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 30, 2005)

B17's were withdrawn from service from the PTO due to range issues. Gen Kenney never liked them as much as a -24 and wanted the -24 whenever possible. The B17 never met the Lancs and B24's ranges.

Your right about the -24's "fire proness". It was with some success, mitigated by cracking the bomb bay tanks. 

And the Corolis effect meant the british props were spinning in the wrong direction with added strain.

No seriously, the B24 was superior to the Lanc in defensive firepower, the two pilot setup was almost mandantory in the PTO, the B24 was superior in ease of manufacture. Plus the Merlin couldnt handle damage as well as the radial engine damaged.

The Lanc was definetly superior in range and payload.

Both were equal in night bombing capability. 

The Lanc with the radial engine setup was almost a completley different design, in which would qualify it for PTO missions. But then, the B32 with the -3350's was essentially a B24 on steroids so Id say compare the radial engined Lanc with the B32 for a fair comparison.

Its still a tie. Lanc could go further with more bombs, but at a cost of a higher loss rate.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 30, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> The Lanc with the radial engine setup was almost a completley different design,


What do you mean?


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 30, 2005)

Its a whole different engine. Completley different.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 30, 2005)

Ah, right. I thought you were meaning the design of the plane itself. Sorry.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> B17's were withdrawn from service from the PTO due to range issues. Gen Kenney never liked them as much as a -24 and wanted the -24 whenever possible. The B17 never met the Lancs and B24's ranges.


That was the decision of General Kenney, but then again if he wanted B-17s he would of had to wait - the ETO had the priority

. 


syscom3 said:


> And the Corolis effect meant the british props were spinning in the wrong direction with added strain.


Like the toilet going the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere  


syscom3 said:


> No seriously, the B24 was superior to the Lanc in defensive firepower, the two pilot setup was almost mandantory in the PTO, the B24 was superior in ease of manufacture. Plus the Merlin couldnt handle damage as well as the radial engine damaged.
> 
> The Lanc was definetly superior in range and payload.
> 
> ...


 good points, I agree about the B-32


syscom3 said:


> Its still a tie. Lanc could go further with more bombs, but at a cost of a higher loss rate.


I'd give it to the Lanc - I hate to say it sending more bombs to the target was the objective - the crew getting back, well was probably secondary and I'm sure that Bomber Harris would agree!


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 30, 2005)

Well, if you put it that way, the Lanc wins.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 31, 2005)

> Since the radial engined Lancs was an extensive modification, I didnt think it would be fair to compare it to the B24 without it getting a significent modification in return. That would be like me comparing a B32 to a Merlin engined Lanc. A minor modification would be something like new gun turrets, or even adding another pilot station.



the Mk.II was a major mark, it wasn't just a modification of a few planes, if we were disscussing the spitfire for example would you discount the Mk.IX as it's baisically a Mk.V with a better engine? of course you wouldn't, should we disscount the B-24J?? well if you're gonna count the Mk.II as a modification and thus discard it then i don't see how discarding, for example, the B-24J is any different..............



> I'm not aware of the RAF using massed fighter escort at night as the 8th used during the day



that's exactily the point i'm trying to prove, you said the lanc couldn't fly unescorted, what was she doing almost every night of the war!



> Being able to produce that many bombers within a couple of years sure is an indication of its ease of manufacture. Is there any other way to describe it?



and how many plants were producing them? how big were these plants? how many workers? when did production start? making lots of something doesn't always mean it's easy to build........



> Its a fact. Actually it was close to one every 56 minutes, which corresponds to 25.7 per day



if it's a fact then you'll be able to give me a source, i'm not saying i don't believe you, i just want a source...........



> As well as its bombing role, It was used as a tanker, transport, photo recon and maritime patrol



how impressive  could she carry an upkeep? no, whereas the dambusting lancs were modified from planes with a few thousand miles on the clock, then after they did the raid they were actually converted back into their normal bombing configuration! could she carry a tallboy in her bomb bay without modification? no, how many different engines was she used as a test bed for? both piston and jet?



> It looks like none of you can handle the fact the Lanc couldnt operate in the PTO as well as the B24



re-phrase that to DIDN'T not couldn't, and how does that make the lanc a bad bomber?



> And the Corolis effect meant the british props were spinning in the wrong direction with added strain



the props on the merlin engined lancs rotated to the right, the Mk.IIs props rotated to the left, they can't both have spun the wrong way?



> the B24 was superior in ease of manufacture



you haven't proved that yet...........

and as i keep saying some losses were always accepted on these raids, they were expected! their primary objective was to get bombs on target, which the stats prove the lanc did allot better than the B-24, so yes, the lanc wins..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 31, 2005)

Jesus Christ that took long eneogh to resolve!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 31, 2005)

i don't believe for one second he's given up, he didn't say "the lanc wins then" he said 



> Well, if you put it that way, the Lanc wins



which knowing him means on in that way the lanc wins, he'll try and find annother way 

but if you really are agreeing the lanc's better sys it's about time


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 31, 2005)

No someother simulation that he only knows about, will be his reason.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 31, 2005)

My simulation shows that the Lanc performs well enough in the PTO for a time, then all the crews have evntually been lost, which causes the Brits/Aussies to switch to B24's which were available in quantity and werent as often shot down.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 31, 2005)

baisically you're conceeding, and admitting that the lancaster was a better bomber than the B-24? a simple yes or no will suffice.........


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 31, 2005)

Why should I give you a simple yes or no. 

If one is willing to accept a far higher loss rate in the Lanc (which would be perhaps three times worse than the B24), yes its a better bomber. But unless you had a pipleine of them to replace the losses, then your bomber force would fade away after several missions. 

Actually, Im beginning to think that the 2nd best bomber would have been the B32. It was in production, and a couple of groups were using them in operations. The stats were far better than the Lanc.

Now for you other comments:

1) Attached is a pdf file describing the Willow Run factory and the copious numbers of B24's it built. 

2) I consider a change from an inline engine to a radial as a major change. Whole different nacelle, aerodynamics, engine controls, performace through various altitudes, fuel consumption, etc. Going from one version of the same engine to another version is a simple modification to the airframe, if it even would need mods.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 31, 2005)

but they made 300 hundred of them in two batches, they were produced as Mk.IIs not converted, how can you disscount them? yeah it's a majoy change, but they did it without any problems and if needed thousands could have been produced, i fail to see how you can just write them out? 

and i can't open the .pdf file..........

do you have any stats to back up your claim that the B-24 had 1/3 the loss rate of the lanc? i make the B-24's loss rate to be about 1.6, the lanc's was slightly more than 2, it's more, but not 3 times more 

and how can the B-32 be second best when she didn't see service over Europe  i don't think anyone's going to agree with you about the B-32 being second best, infact most have already agreed the lanc is second best, and when i say most, i mean everyone but you.............


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 31, 2005)

The B-32 had the potential of being 2nd best but with only 5 or 6 reaching the pacific and seeing very little action I can't see how it could even be counted...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 31, 2005)

5 or 6, sys seems to think there were several groups in use?  and 300 Mk.II lancs were produced and all were used operationally during the war, even the prototype saw use, so he wants to write off 300 lancs and is willing to count half a dozen of annother plane


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 31, 2005)

Here ya go....

"The B-32 was initially intended as insurance against failure of the B-29 program. However, the success of B-29 development and operational deployment made cancellation of the Dominator a very real possibility at several points in its development. The Army Air Forces wanted to begin replacing B-17s and B-24s with B-32s in the summer of 1944. The plan called for Mediterranean based B-24 bomb groups to transition first, followed by other groups in the 15th Air Force and finally 8th Air Force groups. However, because the B-32 test program was so far behind schedule, not a single B-32 was ever sent to the Mediterranean or European Theaters of Operation.

In December 1944, the B-32 program was almost canceled again. This time it was saved pending completion of a service test program. While the service test proceeded, combat crew training was started in preparation for deployment to the Pacific (pending a successful service test.) The service test revealed several minor and a few major problems and the program was near cancellation once again in the spring of 1945. 

In March 1945, General George Kenney, Commander of the Far Eastern Air Forces (5th AF), traveled to Washington D.C. to ask for B-32s. He wanted B-29s but was turned down because of higher priority needs elsewhere in the PTO. After demonstrations in Washington, General Kenney convinced the Army General Staff to allow him to conduct a combat evaluation of the Dominator. A combat test plan of eleven missions was planned and if successful, the B-32 was scheduled to replace all the B-24 groups in the Pacific Theater. Three B-32s were assigned to the 386th Bomb Squadron, 312th Bomb Group, 5th Air Force. The first combat test mission was flown against a supply depot at Antatet, Luzon, Philippines on 29 May 1945. The last mission of the generally successful combat test was flown on 25 June 1945 against bridges near Kiirun on the island of Formosa (Taiwan). 

The 386th Bomb Squadron completed B-32 transition in July 1945 and flew six operational combat missions before the end of the war. Following the 9 August 1945 bombing of Nagasaki, the 386th conducted photo reconnaissance missions and were attacked by flak and fighters on 17 August and again by Japanese fighters on the 18th. Although no Dominator was lost in combat, at least two were damaged. Sergeant Marchione, a photographer aboard one of the B-32s on the photo reconnaissance mission of 18 August 1945, was killed when his bomber was attacked by fighters. 

The last B-32 combat mission (also photo recon) was completed on 28 August 1945. The 386th BS was ordered to cease combat operations two days later. Cancellation of the B-32 program came on 8 September 1945 and production of Dominators was halted on 12 October. Flyable aircraft at Consolidated factories were flown directly to the scrap yard and all partially built B-32s were scrapped at the factory. The last remaining B-32 was scrapped in the summer of 1949.

TYPE 
B-32 
Number Built/Converted
75
Remarks
Production version 
Notes: 
Serial numbers: 42-108471 to 42-10884; 42-108525 to 42-108584; 44-90486 
74 B-32s built at the Consolidated Fort Worth, Texas plant. 
1 B-32 built at the Consolidated San Diego, California plant. 
3 XB-32s and 40 TB-32s were built for a total of 118 B-32 built of all types 
SPECIFICATIONS 
Span: 135 ft. 0 in. 
Length: 82 ft. 1 in. 
Height: 32 ft. 2 in. 
Weight: 100,000 lbs. (design gross weight)
Armament: Ten .50-cal. machine guns plus 20,000 lbs. of bombs (max.)
Engines: Four Wright R-3350-23 Cyclone radials of 2,200 hp. each (takeoff power)
Crew: 10 
PERFORMANCE
Maximum speed: 357 mph. at 30,000 ft.
Cruising speed: 290 mph. 
Range: 3,000 miles w/ 10,000"


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 31, 2005)

what an impressive combat history those 6 planes had


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 31, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> what an impressive combat history those 6 planes had


 

It had potential


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 31, 2005)

For Willow Run, check these links. 

www.strategosinc.com/Downloads/a_bomber_an_hour.pdf

http://info.detnews.com/history/story/index.cfm?id=73&category=locations

http://www.assemblymag.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/news/news_item/0,6501,99912,00.html


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 31, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> what an impressive combat history those 6 planes had



Six more planes in operation over Japan than the brits had!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 31, 2005)

none saw service over Europe though.........


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 31, 2005)

The air war over Europe was essentialy over in March.

Of course it didnt see service there. If it did, it would have put the B17/B24/Lanc to shame.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 31, 2005)

so, you're saying that a bomber that flew 6 operational sorties in a war is better than one that flew over 156,000??


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 31, 2005)

It flew, and the plane was superior to the Lanc.

Higher payload, longer range, faster, better armed.


----------



## Erich (Dec 31, 2005)

war over in March ? hardly, the Luftwaffe was still killing Soviet/Allied a/c at night and day and they in turn were getting butt kicked, at least during daylight hours.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 31, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> It flew, and the plane was superior to the Lanc.
> 
> Higher payload, longer range, faster, better armed.



i seriously doubt anyone's going to agree with you on this one that the B-32's better than the lanc..........

and happy new year! we'll proberly be having this argument at the next new year


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 31, 2005)

The air war was over by then. Allied armies were on the march. Germany was being constricted, the Rhur was lost, the refineries were wrecked and producing nothing. Only a few German planes were able to get into the air and they could not stop anything.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 31, 2005)

Someone open up this link and see if it works for you. Lanc is reporting it doesnt work for him.


www.strategosinc.com/Downloads/a_bomber_an_hour.pdf


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 31, 2005)

thank you, that link worked, i'm off to bed in a moment so will read it tomorrow..........


----------



## Erich (Dec 31, 2005)

sorry sys I agree to disagree that the air war was all but over in March. there were plenty of guys on both sides that got creamed even on the last day of the air war in Europe


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 31, 2005)

From March 1 to April 30, the 8th AF lost only 230 bombers. Mostly to flak. Considering the thousands of sorties by the 8th AF in the last two months, those loss's were inconsequential (except to the crews shot down).

In the scheme of things, the Strategic air war was over.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 1, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> From March 1 to April 30, the 8th AF lost only 230 bombers.


Two times the losses of heavy bombers over Japan in the whole year (13 of them shot down by enemy aircrafts, 6 from may to august).

DogW


----------



## Erich (Jan 1, 2006)

some of the heaviest fighting of fighters and bombers versus German jets occured in March of 45 as well as some of the heaviest Night fighter engagements as well. March 18, 45 B-17's clobbered by JG 7 R4M's for the very first time; German jets use modified R4M's to attack Soviet armor...............yeah the aerial war was over all right.


----------



## Glider (Jan 1, 2006)

Syscom I was able to open the file but had to install the lates version of Adobe. However I don't see the issue. The UK was able to produce Halifax's at one an hour in 1943 so to produce a B24 at one an hour is obviously impressive but not ground breaking.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 1, 2006)

But the Lanc wasnt being built at one per hour. The issue is the ease of the B24 to make vs. the Lanc.


A little bit off topic, but.........

For 8th AF loss's in the last two months of the war, the worst loss's were: 

2 March 1945, 14 B17/24's shot down. The Luftwaffe was up in force that day with big air battles going on

18 March 1945, 13 B17/24's shot down. The Luftwaffe was not up in force that day, but Me262's did have their most successfull intercept of the war. Surprisingly, 8 out of the 13 shot down were due to flak.

24 March 1945, when 19 were shot down. But then 14 of those loss's were to the 2nd AD B24's were to light arms fire as they were flying at 400 ft to drop supplies to US and British forces crossing the Rheine. If you eliminate those 14, then you only lost five B17/24's out of 1749 dispatched.

7 April 1945, 17 B17/24's shot down out of 1314. The Luftwaffe was up in force that day with big air battles going on

10 April 1945, 19 B17/24's shot down out of 1315. The Luftwaffe was up in force that day with big air battles going on.

All the other missions, loss's were 10 or less, with an astonishing number of missions where there were zero loss's. Compared to the carnage of Summer/Fall 1944, these loss's were insignificent.


----------



## Erich (Jan 1, 2006)

Sys let me get the receord stright for you and others about 18 of march 45. I even wrote Roger Freeman the 8th AF historain to get his records on tap as he used the official 8th records for the date but they were incorrect.

III./JG 7 pounded B-17 formations with their R4M's/3cm's and in a seperate engagement on the same date I./JG 7 roared in with their 4 3cm canons. The proof is 20 B-17 destroyed, and none of the 8 claimed by ground flak were verified. this was the case of the attack by the R4M's, it was so quick and violent surviving B-17 crewman saw their buddies and tehm BOOM ! that was it....... all by R4M's. I have interviewed at least 3 B-17 crews that wintessed the action and were horrified at the event with nothing they could do but try and pop of .50's at the jets which they could not even track. have thought very seriously the last 20 years on publishing a small booklet on the date.

no mention of Night fighter actions I see, and I understand this well as they are not well covered.

Sadly there was plenty of death in the skies, you might want to pick up volume 2 of JG 300 by Eagle Editions this spring 2006 and read the events which were many surrounding this Reich defence unit. both JG 300 and 301 besides JG 7 jets fought agasint eh US/RAF and the Soviets on both fronts, besdies the Nachtjagd esepcially NJG 5 fighting RAF bombers and then hitting Soviet armor and MT columns trying to access Berlin and the environs. If anything in the ETO the spring months of 1945 became more diverse for the Luftwaffe than any other time in their miserble existance.

E ~


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 1, 2006)

Syscom I am sorry but none of your arguments prove anything. You have not proven that the Lanc was not easy to build. You have not proven that the Lanc would have sustained more losses, nore have proven anything.

2nd I am telling you one last time, give it up on your simulations crap. First of all they dont prove anything because you can not source them, and they really dont prove anything because you doing simulations on your PC dont count for anything. 

*Jesus this is really getting annoying!*


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 1, 2006)

Erich, youre correct about the loss's. I checked the MACR's for March 18 1945 and there were 19 missing B17's and B24's that day from the 8th AF. If you say that the loss's were due to the jet fighters, I yield to your data.

I was using his book as the source of data for the mission stats for this time period, and hes usually accurate about this.


----------



## Erich (Jan 1, 2006)

Usually............Roger has some vast data although US sources only. His cross checking was rather lame. I also sent him a note(s) on the Sturmgruppen missions esepcially the 27 September 44 date and he was shocked.

Besides and this is where I really get pissed off but not all the MACR'sa are accounted for. this is very eveident with the B-26 formations, the bomb group historians just say "oh well". The loss of them and not being in any particular order is bad enough but when one is copied from a lousy, sloppy typewritten or penciled in report from a lazy staff corporal you can see why even with the order with the US armed forces that things can go awry. It is very very frustrating. some of the top notch European historians have nearly thrown up theri hands in . I know I have too many times


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 1, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Syscom I am sorry but none of your arguments prove anything. You have not proven that the Lanc was not easy to build. You have not proven that the Lanc would have sustained more losses, nore have proven anything.



I have more than proven some of my points. The fact that the B24 could be built in 56 minutes proves that point without a doubt. Untill someone gives some data on the production time for a Lanc, then my assertion stands. 

And of course the Lanc would have had higher loss's. You seem not to be able to disprove my assertions that radial engines are better able to handle damage as they dont have radiators that can be shot out, the long ranges in the PTO magnified any damage problems and having a second pilot at the controls to immediatly take command is far safer than having a single pilot at the controls. 

Plus the B24 was better armed than the Lanc was, plain and simple. Ten .50's beats eight .303's any day.



> 2nd I am telling you one last time, give it up on your simulations crap. First of all they dont prove anything because you can not source them, and they really dont prove anything because you doing simulations on your PC dont count for anything.



Why do you presume my simulations are on a flight sim? Ever hear of a plain old calculator and pen and pencil and doing some math? Why are you the only one that doesnt have a sense of humor about it?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 1, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The fact that the B24 could be built in 56 minutes proves that point without a doubt.



Do you really think that it only takes 56 minutes to build an aircraft. All that mean is that one is rolling out the doors every 56 minutes. A baby is born every 1 minute, that does not mean that from the time the ejaculation occurs to the time the baby pops out is 1 minute! If you truely think that 56 minutes is all it took to build a Liberator, you really are naive! Trust me I am a maintainer of an aircraft, it is not building it but it gives me somewhat of the idea. Just installing the electrical wiring would take days, more likely weeks.

The only thing this proves is the US industrial capacity, which has never been disputed.



syscom3 said:


> And of course the Lanc would have had higher loss's.



Can you absolutly prove this. No you can not, the war is over.



syscom3 said:


> You seem not to be able to disprove my assertions that radial engines are better able to handle damage as they dont have radiators that can be shot out,



And can you prove otherwise. While I agree that radials are better, you can not prove your point either. And just because a bomber has radial engines does not make it better than an inline powered bomber.



syscom3 said:


> the long ranges in the PTO magnified any damage problems and having a second pilot at the controls to immediatly take command is far safer than having a single pilot at the controls.



And that is one advantage that everyone as agreed on, but that one advantage does not outweigh the advantages of the Lancaster. 



syscom3 said:


> Plus the B24 was better armed than the Lanc was, plain and simple. Ten .50's beats eight .303's any day.



Because the Lancaster was chosen for Night Bombing. Had it been chosen for Day Bombing it would have recieved better armament. What is your damn point?




syscom3 said:


> Why do you presume my simulations are on a flight sim? Ever hear of a plain old calculator and pen and pencil and doing some math? Why are you the only one that doesnt have a sense of humor about it?



Because even by doing that you can not prove how one aircraft is better than the other, and it is getting fucking annoying!  It is not about humor anymore but about being annoying!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I have more than proven some of my points. The fact that the B24 could be built in 56 minutes proves that point without a doubt. Untill someone gives some data on the production time for a Lanc, then my assertion stands.



One rolled evey 56 minutes. It probably took 30 days to deliver one, from when metal was first cut, till it rolled on the flight line....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 1, 2006)

Yeap that is what I said in my posting.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 1, 2006)

sys, put it this way, i can think of atleast one other person that's getting annoyed by the simulations talk 

how about we stop listening you to trying to promote the B-24's one or two advantages over the lanc, and look AGAIN and just some of the advantages of the lanc over the B-24...........

payload 
manoeuvrability 
cruising speed 
payload to range 
versatility 
total tonnage 
tonnage per sortie 
tonnage per aircraft lost 

along with other advantages, and you go on about the losses of the lanc, not only were they only about 0.5% greater than the B-24's, but look at the tonnage dropped per aircraft lost, the lancaster dropped 203 tons of bombs per aircraft lost, the B-24 dropped a meager 125 tons of bombs per aircraft lost, says something, no?

and about the "ease" of manufacture of the B-24, i am looking into the production figures of the lanc, as of yet you have not proved the B-24 was easier to produce, not by any means, simply because to compare two aircraft on a point like this implies you have to have the same information about both planes..............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 1, 2006)

The only thing that the production implies is the great US production capacity which is pretty much undisputed.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 1, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> sys, put it this way, i can think of atleast one other person that's getting annoyed by the simulations talk



I dont bring up the simulator comments, you guys do. I only respond. Hint... go back and check the posts. 

Hint.... lighten up and laugh 

):



> how about we stop listening you to trying to promote the B-24's one or two advantages over the lanc, and look AGAIN and just some of the advantages of the lanc over the B-24...........



Agree'd payload 
Agree'd manoeuvrability 
Agree'd cruising speed 
Agree'd payload to range 
Agree'd total tonnage 
Agree'd tonnage per sortie 
Agree'd tonnage per aircraft lost 

versatility i disagree as both with just as equal.

B24 advantages:
two pilot cockpit
better defensive firepower
radial engines less prone to damage
flew in every theater. Lanc had zero sorties in the PTO

We know how the B24 performed in the PTO. We have no idea how the Lanc would have performed as it never flew there. Big difference between actuall performance and hypothetical performance.



> along with other advantages, and you go on about the losses of the lanc, not only were they only about 0.5% greater than the B-24's, but look at the tonnage dropped per aircraft lost, the lancaster dropped 203 tons of bombs per aircraft lost, the B-24 dropped a meager 125 tons of bombs per aircraft lost, says something, no?



If the B24 was operating at night, the loss would be far lower. If the Lanc was operating during the day, its loss's would be higher. In the PTO, the Lanc would have to do both, and thats where its loss rate would go up.



> and about the "ease" of manufacture of the B-24, i am looking into the production figures of the lanc, as of yet you have not proved the B-24 was easier to produce, not by any means, simply because to compare two aircraft on a point like this implies you have to have the same information about both planes..............



18,000 produced at the rate of of one per hour implies it was easily mass produced. 

Now of course, if the whole idea is to drop bombs on the target and getting shotdown is tough luck, then the Lanc wins. But then you had better have a pipleline of bombers and crews to make up for it.


----------



## Erich (Jan 1, 2006)

actually the B-24 was flown on missions at night with US 15th AF 2461st special ops group I believe. the poor suckers got nailed in the spring of 1945 by Ju 88G-6's of NJG 100 using Schrägwaffen. I was able to help tow seperate families find reason of lost of kin and the fatality of the B-24's of Austria and Yugoslavia.

Also flown at night by the RAF, the B-24's were painted solid black and actually look quite mean in their dark camo


----------



## Glider (Jan 2, 2006)

An observation about this discussion (argument?) about rate of production. 

Like the rest of you I don't know what the peak production of the Lancaster was. However I do know that peak production of the Halifax was one an hour, and would be surprised if that of the Lancaster was far behind being a very similar plane in complexity. Rough sums tell me that around five to six a day were produced on average from beginning of production to the end. Add in the inevitable time taken to build up production and the tapering off of production there shouldn’t be much in it.

However the argument is rather pointless for the following reasons. American factories operated in a peace time environment. They were not attacked, their supplies were secure, sub contractors were secure, power was secure, raw materials were secure, the economy was better, the factories themselves could be designed and built for maximum production and not spread out in shadow factories like those in the UK to minimise damage.

They damn well should have been able to build planes faster than the UK.

If we could build a Halifax at the rate of one and hour with all the difficulties outlined above, I have one question for Syscom. 

WHY WERE THE USA SO SLOW?


----------



## Glider (Jan 2, 2006)

Now I have that off my chest. I don't see why a Lancaster would suffer heavier losses in the PTO. Lancasters were in service with twin .50 at the end of the war and there was a version that had it own built in gun laying radar in the rear turret. Its not the same as the B24 but its an improvement. Also Jap fighters were less well armed than the German fighters, didn't perform as well at height, were less able to take damage than German fighters. Plus of course compared to German defences they had little if any effective defence against night time bombing raids.

How on earth do Lancasters suffer worse losses in these situations?


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> 18,000 produced at the rate of of one per hour implies it was easily mass produced.


If you don't have datas of the number of persons involved in the production of the two planes, is the same thing to say that, since in the USA born a baby every 5 minutes, and in Germany one every 15 minutes, American babyes are easier to build (is an example, I don't know the rate of production of babyes in the two countries).



syscom3 said:


> B24 advantages:
> two pilot cockpit...


On the other hand, a two pilot cockpit implies that two highly trained pilots were lost with every planes shot down. If the datas posted above are correct, the loss rate of pilots over the two planes were of 2,1 for lancs and 3,2 for B24 (without counting the few that were rescued). If the main problem is the shortage of machines, a two pilot cockpit is better, if the main problem is the shortage of men, it's not.

DogW


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 2, 2006)

> radial engines less prone to damage



you list this as an advantage for the B-24 yet the lancaster was fitted with radials, which we have been over time and again............



> Big difference between actuall performance and hypothetical performance.



if you know this's true why do you base so much on simulations 



> In the PTO, the Lanc would have to do both, and thats where its loss rate would go up



she did both over Europe, over 40,000 sorties she flew by day, that's not an ignorable ammount...........


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 2, 2006)

right, lancaster production, we'll look at the A.V. Roe Co. Ltd. figures as this company lead the lancaster production group.

so, at the peak of production in August 1944 they produced 155 combat ready lancasters, many parts were produced at Chadderton, then assebled at Woodford, and Yeadon built many of their own parts and assembled them on site.

at the peak of production these sites employed 24,036 people, working day and night shifts, this figure accounts for absolutely EVERYONE, from the bosses to the guy that makes the tea to the guy that sweeps the floors and even the test pilots that didn't even help produce the lancs! but i couldn't get any more figures than i have so it'll have to do

what does this mean? it means that at this one company it took 155 people to make a lanc, i don't know how useful this figure is, but we'll see if you have any similar data, and please god if you try and calculate the same stat for the B-24 don't work on the premice that one B-24 took an hour to make then times that by however many hours there are in a month to get what you think is how many they made in a month, actually get the figure for how many were made at the plant in one month, and how many imployees were needed..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 2, 2006)

Syscom3 again your argument about simplicity to build does not hold up. If there are 5 factories building a B-24 and only 1 building a Lancaster, more B-24s are going to be built. It did not take 1 hour to build a B-24. *Are you blind and not reading what everyone has already told you about that, because you keep repeating stuff that people have already debated and told you was wrong.* *It took atleat 4 weeks to build a B-24 not 1 HOUR!* T*hat must means that one was finished every hour, not built in an hour*Does not mean didly squat! More Bf-109s were buiolt than Fw-190s. Does that mean that the Fw-190 was harder to build than a Bf-109. Hell know.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2006)

Dogwalker said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > 18,000 produced at the rate of of one per hour implies it was easily mass produced.
> ...



It was a fact that a B-24 was produced every hour, ONE ROLLED OUT THE DOOR EVERY HOUR *it took about 30 days to produce an entire bomber* - Lockheed, North American and other manufacturers made similar bosts - the only reason why this was accomplished because the resources and people were available and sometimes US aircraft were being produced at several locations at the same time - and Glider was right, the US had the luxury of a "peacetime" production environment where all the factories were free of enemy actions...




Dogwalker said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > t;]B24 advantages:
> ...


The RAF definitely had a manpower shortage at the beginning of the war, well documented during the Battle of Britain. The US didn't have that problem with pilots..

Even with a pilot shortage a two man cockpit will always be the better flight crew configuration for reasons previously posted, mainly flying IMC. 



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> right, lancaster production, we'll look at the A.V. Roe Co. Ltd. figures as this company lead the lancaster production group.
> 
> so, at the peak of production in August 1944 they produced 155 combat ready lancasters, many parts were produced at Chadderton, then assebled at Woodford, and Yeadon built many of their own parts and assembled them on site.
> 
> ...



What you're leaving out Lanc is the thousands of sub contractors that manufactured smaller sheet metal and aluminum parts. As stated the ONLY reason why the B-24 achieved those production numbers was because of an automotive style production line at various facilities set up by Ford Manufacturing Chief Charles Sorenson. Convair pooled in people and resources to make all this happen.

When you're building a large aircraft, "a plane is a plane, is a plane, is a plane." I built P-3s, L1011s and B-2s and could tell you the production line environment was the same, if you have the people and material you could build one an hour anywhere, anytime. Bottom line, the B-24 was no harder or easier to build than the Lancaster, the B-24 production line had the luxury of people and material in a "peacetime" environment. If given the same situation, I'm sure the Lancaster could of been produced at the same rate.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 2, 2006)

There you go again Syscom another person has repeated what I was saying. As a matter of fact me and FBJ have been repeating this over and over.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 2, 2006)

well that figure took into account most of the parts manufactured, i can list for you the smaller companies and what they produced however i didn't have their staff figures so there's not allot of point anyway 

unless, do you wanna come at it in a different way, how many components to the B-24 were there?


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 2, 2006)

Glider said:


> WHY WERE THE USA SO SLOW?



Simple answer to you. Because the US didnt begin the air force buildup (USAAF and USN) untill 1941. And congress wasnt going to allocate money for all those factories untill we actually were at war. Plus there were unique propblems on the macro-economics level that had to be overcome. First, we (the US) is a almost a continental in size unlike the UK which is a small island of sorts. Factories had to be built across the nation for military and political reasons which tended to slow things down for construction. Second, huge numbers of people had to be recruited to build the plants, let alone the aircraft. Housing and transportation for them had to be arranged or built for them.

Many times production suffered at first because enough skilled workers were not present Once the buildings and workers were in place then production ramped up. 

Then, of course we were also building the B17 at the same time as the B24. That took production capacity away from the B24. Add the workload for Boeing and Convair associated with the B29, B32 and B36, and its amazing we could have even built a couple of the new factories for the 
B24.

So if youre saying why we were so slow? Because there were bonafide reasons why production didnt ramp up untill 1943.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2006)

Here's someting intersting about B-24 production

B-24 Production Pool
To meet the foreseen large demand for the B-24, the government set up a consortium of aircraft manufacturers and plants to build the plane:
CO - Consolidated/San Diego plant 
CF - Consolidated/Fort Worth plant 
DT - Douglas/Tulsa plant 
FO - Ford/Willow Run plant 
NT - North American/Dallas plant
The story of Ford's Willow Run plant could fill a book in itself. They broke ground in April, 1941; by September, it was complete - an 80 acre factory. Dormitories were built on the site and a commuter rail line was extended to it. Designed by Ford executives like Charles Sorenson, Willow Run got off to a slow start, as its automobile, assembly-line style of manufacturing had to be adapted to aircraft production. By mid-1943, with 42,000 employees, it began to turn out B-24s - 230 per month. By the end of 1944, 650 per month. When production ended in April, 1945, Willow Run had turned out over 8,600 Liberators. 
*The Liberator Production Pool did not operate completely trouble-free. Parts made by different factories were not always interchangeable, and implementing the countless required changes consistently was a headache. Eventually, separate "modification centers" were set up to upgrade planes that had just left the factory, but were already obsolescent.*

What is shown here is a disadvantage in an automotive style production line for aircraft and why today most aircraft are built in "segments' and come together at one major final assembly location....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 2, 2006)

odd, http://www.michiganhistorymagazine.com/extra/willow_run/willow_run.html seems to think their biggest output was 428 a month??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> odd, http://www.michiganhistorymagazine.com/extra/willow_run/willow_run.html seems to think their biggest output was 428 a month??



yes, but factor in the other plants and I'm sure you'll come up with the "ONE AN HOUR" claim....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 2, 2006)

Good post up there FBJ.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 2, 2006)

i posted that in reply to your source that said their peak output was 650- they can't both be right, unless yours is for all the plants combined.........


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 2, 2006)

Glider said:


> Now I have that off my chest. I don't see why a Lancaster would suffer heavier losses in the PTO. Lancasters were in service with twin .50 at the end of the war and there was a version that had it own built in gun laying radar in the rear turret. Its not the same as the B24 but its an improvement. Also Jap fighters were less well armed than the German fighters, didn't perform as well at height, were less able to take damage than German fighters. Plus of course compared to German defences they had little if any effective defence against night time bombing raids.
> 
> How on earth do Lancasters suffer worse losses in these situations?



The IJA and IJN was more than capable of shooting down allied bombers when the pilots were experienced and were using later model fighters. As good as the Germans, nope. Good enough to take their toll? Yes. You forget that the bombing altitudes were far lower than in the ETO and if anything, that meant the fast climbing Japanese fighters could get into the thick of things quickly. Now the Japanese had also adopted the technique of head on attacks, so the twin .50's in the tail werent going to help you. What you needed was the firepower up front.

Now why do I suppose that that the Lanc would have a higher loss rate? As I listed many times, the tremendous ranges meant that what would be considered minor damages in the short runs in the ETO, would soon become moderate and then severe damage in the longers flights int he PTO. Think about it. A minor coolant leak in one of the Merlins tht could be ignored by the crew on a 3 hour flight back to base could be catastophic on a 7 hour flight in the PTO. Add in the lack of defensive firepower against any fighters, plus a single pilot in the cockpit, and its inevitable the loss's would be higher than the B24.

Ive given thought to the Lanc being used only on nighttime raids. If used for only this operation, then it would perform almost as well as the B24 (single pilot does mean a lot on long missions). However, the B24 could be used day or night. That means it would be more versatile (IN THE PTO!!!!!!!).

By the start of 1945, the US had bases all over the PTO and the Japanese airforce had pretty much collapsed from, so the point about the long ranges was moot. Plus once the Japanese fighter threat had dissapeared, the lack of defensive firepower for the Lanc was also less important. But by that time, the B29's were flying and the B17/B24 and Lanc were obsolescent.

One thing I will admit where the Lanc would have been superior in the PTO was in the lifeboat role. That big bomb bay could be opened up and used to good effect to carry lifeboats to drop to crews of downed planes.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jan 2, 2006)

If one gets the chance to visit Oshgosh, visit the EAA museum. Besides the fantasic aircraft, they have a display and model of the Willow Run plant. It was massive.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 2, 2006)

Dogwalker said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > 18,000 produced at the rate of of one per hour implies it was easily mass produced.
> ...



If a Volkswagon car plant says they could build 1000 vehicles in a day, that means 1000 would come off the assembly line. Since its fact that Willow Run at its peak was producing 25 B24's per day, that means 25 B24's were coming off the asembly line.



syscom3 said:


> B24 advantages:
> two pilot cockpit...


On the other hand, a two pilot cockpit implies that two highly trained pilots were lost with every planes shot down. If the datas posted above are correct, the loss rate of pilots over the two planes were of 2,1 for lancs and 3,2 for B24 (without counting the few that were rescued). If the main problem is the shortage of machines, a two pilot cockpit is better, if the main problem is the shortage of men, it's not.
[/quote]

Two pilots means greater efficiency, and it also means if one pilot is incapacitated, then the other takes over. Think of how many Lancs could have returned to base if the pilot hadnt been killed or wounded.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 2, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Even with a pilot shortage a two man cockpit will always be the better flight crew configuration for reasons previously posted, mainly flying IMC.


This is true, from the rest of the crew's point of view, but they know only a piece of the story.
In general, the redundancy of every system of a plane is an advantage in case of malfunction (or distruction). On the other hand, every redoundant system costs in terms of weight (to transport), time and money (to build).
Pilots are, by far, the most expensive item mounted on a WWII bomber. It's a matter of discussion if the eventuality of a "single pilot's malfunction", compared with all the other possible damages that could cause the loss of a plane, is so probable to justify to add another one, and to risk to lose them both.

DogW


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> If a Volkswagon car plant says they could build 1000 vehicles in a day, that means 1000 would come off the assembly line. Since its fact that Willow Run at its peak was producing 25 B24's per day, that means 25 B24's were coming off the asembly line.



Just please tell me that you understand that it did not take 54 minutest to build a B-24.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 2, 2006)

Dogwalker said:


> [
> This is true, from the rest of the crew's point of view, but they know only a piece of the story.
> In general, the redundancy of every system of a plane is an advantage in case of malfunction (or distruction). On the other hand, every redoundant system costs in terms of weight (to transport), time and money (to build).
> Pilots are, by far, the most expensive item mounted on a WWII bomber. It's a matter of discussion if the eventuality of a "single pilot's malfunction", compared with all the other possible damages that could cause the loss of a plane, is so probable to justify to add another one, and to risk to lose them both.
> ...



Generally yes, but most aircraft are designed around the mission and crew. That way the weight is already calculated into the design and does not really effect anything. So 2 pilots still is better than one.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> If a Volkswagon car plant says they could build 1000 vehicles in a day, that means 1000 would come off the assembly line.


Yes, I agree, that no means that a Golf is easier to assembly than a Fiat Multipla, even if only 100 Multipla leave the plant every day.

DogW


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 2, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well that figure took into account most of the parts manufactured, i can list for you the smaller companies and what they produced however i didn't have their staff figures so there's not allot of point anyway
> 
> unless, do you wanna come at it in a different way, how many components to the B-24 were there?



For Willow Run:
488,193 parts
30,000 components
24 major sub assemblies
25,000 initial engineering drawings
34,533 employee's at peak


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 2, 2006)

> As I listed many times, the tremendous ranges meant that what would be considered minor damages in the short runs in the ETO, would soon become moderate and then severe damage in the longers flights int he PTO. Think about it. A minor coolant leak in one of the Merlins tht could be ignored by the crew on a 3 hour flight back to base could be catastophic on a 7 hour flight in the PTO.



we've been over this again and again, the lanc was fitted with radials! and the lanc could fly very long ranges on 3 engines, which i've heard isn't the case with the B-24............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 2, 2006)

This is going to be a never ending debate here, I have a feeling.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 2, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Syscom3 again your argument about simplicity to build does not hold up. If there are 5 factories building a B-24 and only 1 building a Lancaster, more B-24s are going to be built. It did not take 1 hour to build a B-24. *Are you blind and not reading what everyone has already told you about that, because you keep repeating stuff that people have already debated and told you was wrong.* *It took atleat 4 weeks to build a B-24 not 1 HOUR!* T*hat must means that one was finished every hour, not built in an hour*Does not mean didly squat! More Bf-109s were buiolt than Fw-190s. Does that mean that the Fw-190 was harder to build than a Bf-109. Hell know.



One Factory of B24's built more Lancs total. Enough said.

There is lots of supporting facts that a B24 was built in one hour.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 2, 2006)

so what if the one factory produced more, that one factory was proberly the biggest in the world, in one of the largest industrail nations in the world, look at it this way, i'll use summit other that planes, summit like....toilet seats!

so, one man takes 1.5 hours to make a hand crafted toilet seat, whereas two men take 1 hour to make annother toilet seat, which is quicker/easier to produce?

the first toilet seat took 1.5 man hours to make, the second took two man hours to make because there were two men working on it for an hour, just beacuse something is produced in more numbers/faster than something else that doesn't mean it's easier to build..........


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 2, 2006)

> ..... If given the same situation, I'm sure the Lancaster could of been produced at the same rate.....



Wasnt there a Lanc plant in Canada that was building planes in a peacetime operation?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> One Factory of B24's built more Lancs total. Enough said.
> 
> There is lots of supporting facts that a B24 was built in one hour.



No they do not prove that the B-24 was easier to build, nor do they prove that they only took one hour to build. One was coming off the assy. line every hour, not being built in an hour. Trust me it takes longer than an hour to install the damn landing gear on the thing. 

Take it from someone who works on aircraft. It takes longer to inspect an aircraft than you actually think it takes to build them. *It took about 30 day s to build a B-24, but one was rolling off the assy line every hour.*

If you think you can build a B-24 in 60 minutes then you really dont know anything about aircraft and how they are put together.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 2, 2006)

no, all the canadian lancs were produced during the war, and they had to be pretty easy to make if the canadians could make them


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> One Factory of B24's built more Lancs total. Enough said.


NO - the facility had 4 times the amount of people...


syscom3 said:


> There is lots of supporting facts that a B24 was built in one hour.



And again you're wrong - I would guess at least 15 if not 30 days with all the sub assemblies - from the time the first metal chip was cut till the thing went out the door!!!!!

Here's the willow run site- it's explaining JIT principles - final assembly took 1 hour = that's with all the major subs available. - factor in all the subs and their time.....

http://www.strategosinc.com/willow_run.htm


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 2, 2006)

He does not get it FBJ.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Two pilots means greater efficiency, and it also means if one pilot is incapacitated, then the other takes over. Think of how many Lancs could have returned to base if the pilot hadnt been killed or wounded.


Yes, and how many 2nd pilots of two-pilots bombers fell down uselessy when their planes were hit in the engines, bomb bays, fuel tanks, structures, flying controls, or every vital part of the plane other than the 1st pilot?
Could had been better if these guys were piloting another plane in that moment?
80 Kg of inexpensive additional armour to protect the pilot alone, works better or worse than 80 Kg of expensive additional pilot?
These are exactly the terms of the problem.

DogW


----------



## Glider (Jan 2, 2006)

Glider wrote: 

WHY WERE THE USA SO SLOW? 

Syscom replied
Simple answer to you. Because the US didnt begin the air force buildup (USAAF and USN) untill 1941. And congress wasnt going to allocate money for all those factories untill we actually were at war. Plus there were unique propblems on the macro-economics level that had to be overcome. First, we (the US) is a almost a continental in size unlike the UK which is a small island of sorts. Factories had to be built across the nation for military and political reasons which tended to slow things down for construction. Second, huge numbers of people had to be recruited to build the plants, let alone the aircraft. Housing and transportation for them had to be arranged or built for them. 

Many times production suffered at first because enough skilled workers were not present Once the buildings and workers were in place then production ramped up. 

Then, of course we were also building the B17 at the same time as the B24. That took production capacity away from the B24. Add the workload for Boeing and Convair associated with the B29, B32 and B36, and its amazing we could have even built a couple of the new factories for the 
B24. 

So if youre saying why we were so slow? Because there were bonafide reasons why production didnt ramp up untill 1943.
_________________
I knew he would take the bait and thanks to the others who I was pretty sure wouldn't


----------



## Glider (Jan 2, 2006)

Sorry Syscom but I couldn't resist it.

However you didn't comment on the rest of the posting which were good reasons why the USA should be able to produce more bombers.

As for the other comments we obviously had to build factories, train and house people to work in those factories, find funding when we were to all purposes bankrupt.

We were also building Halifax's as well as the Lanc whjich is a match for the B17 and the B24 plus to a degree we also were building Sterlings another plane in a similar catagory.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 2, 2006)

And with that limited production, the British were building Spitfires, Hurricanes, Mossies, and other aircraft in there limited number of factories and the whole time being bombed, which was something the US did not have to worry about. The US had more abundance of raw materials and way more factories.

None of these argruments that syscom has put foward proves that a B-24 was easier to build than a Lancaster.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 2, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And with that limited production, the British were building Spitfires, Hurricanes, Mossies, and other aircraft in there limited number of factories and the whole time being bombed, which was something the US did not have to worry about. The US had more abundance of raw materials and way more factories.
> 
> None of these argruments that syscom has put foward proves that a B-24 was easier to build than a Lancaster.



Untill someones posts some factory production times, then the B24 wins cause theres data for it.

And remember, Canada was not being bombed and there was plenty of US personell to help build the commonwealth aircraft.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 2, 2006)

Glider said:


> ...
> As for the other comments we obviously had to build factories, train and house people to work in those factories, find funding when we were to all purposes bankrupt.
> 
> We were also building Halifax's as well as the Lanc whjich is a match for the B17 and the B24 plus to a degree we also were building Sterlings another plane in a similar catagory.



You had a 2 to 3 year head start on us.

And while you were working on the same old airplanes, we were working on next generation of aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2006)

Dogwalker said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > Two pilots means greater efficiency, and it also means if one pilot is incapacitated, then the other takes over. Think of how many Lancs could have returned to base if the pilot hadnt been killed or wounded.
> ...



Most of the pilot losses during WW2 for all sides wasn't even in combat, it was during training and many of those training losses were due to the aircraft impacting the terrain while under IMC....


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 2, 2006)

IMC?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2006)

"Although overshadowed by the B-17 Flying Fortress, the Liberator had a number of virtues that made it a much more sought after bomber: It was fast (300 mph at 30,000 feet), capable of carrying 8000 LB of bombs, and had an operational range of approximately 2290 miles.

The prototype XB-24 flew in 12/39 and the first deliveries were made 1941 to the RAF. It's worth was soon realized when it served as a reconnaissance aircraft, submarine bomber, VIP transport, and ferried pilots and personnel across the North Atlantic. Heavily armed and possessing long range, the Mighty B-24 Liberator helped the Allies to take and maintain control of the vital sealanes. 
Liberators dropped more than 635,000 tons of bombs on Europe, Africa. and the Pacific and shot down 4,189 enemy aircraft.* In combat the B-24 tended to burn more easily than the B-17, and when damaged, was inclined to break up during a wheels-up landing. 

This was due to its very complex construction: In particular, the wing was relatively weak and in many cases, if hit in the crucial places, it gave away completely. Photographic records of WWII show B-24s plummeting from the sky with their two wings folded upwards like those of a butterfly."*

MORE..

"First, break the plane's design into essential units and make a separate production layout for each unit. Next, build as many units as are required, then deliver each unit in its proper sequence to the assembly line to make one whole unit~ finished plane.

To house all this and provide for efficient operation there should be a new plant specially designed to accommodate the progressive layout. I saw no impossibility in such an idea even though mass production of anything approaching the size and complexity of a B-24 never had been attempted before.

But who would accept such a wild notion? And instead of one bomber a day by the prevailing method I saw the possibility of one B-24 an hour by mass production assembly lines. How could the aviation people take that estimate seriously?

As soon as I returned to my room at the Coronado Hotel, I began figuring how to adapt Ford assembly methods to airplane construction and turn out one four-engine bomber an hour."

NOTE THE FIRST PARAGRAPH!! "Next, build as many units as are required, then deliver each unit in its proper sequence to the assembly line to make one whole unit~ finished plane."

That meant all the sub assemblies were previously built somewhere else and it took TIME TO ASSEMBLE THEM - Sorrenson's breakthrough was sequencing them so final assembly could be done between 60 and 90 minutes - it still took several weeks to stage this!!!!!

*And even then, because of the "Automotive Production Line" environment, there wasn't enough time to implement production changes so mod centers had to be set up to actually "finish" the bomber!*

SO ASK YOURSELF - IS THE BOMBER REALLY COMPLETED IF IT HAS TO GO TO A MOD CENTER BECAUSE THE PRODUCTION LINE CAN'T SUPPORT ENGINEERING CHANGES!!!!!

"As might have been expected, the production pool system did cause lots of problems with standardization of components and equipment. Variants coming from the various members of the pool would often have significant detail differences from each other, leading to a spare parts and interchangeability nightmare. There were often significant differences between the various production blocks of the same model Liberator and sometimes differences even WITHIN a production block. Parts for Liberators built at different factories were often not interchangeable with each other, and all four factories involved in primary manufacturing produced Liberators of similar variants but of vastly different detail specification. Even the two Consolidated plants suffered from this problem. 

With the introduction of the B-24J, all five members of the pool (both primary manufacturers and sub-assemblers) converted to the production of this version. 

Since Liberator production rates were extremely high, it became difficult to introduce changes dictated by field experience onto the production line in a timely fashion. Consequently, newly-constructed Liberators were often already obsolescent as soon as they rolled off the line. For this reasons, a series of modification centers were established for the incorporation of these changes into new Liberators following their manufacture. There were seven known modification centers: Consolidated/Fort Worth, Oklahoma City Air Materiel Center, Tucson Modification Center, Birmingham Depot, Northwest Airlines Depot, Martin-Omaha, and Hawaiian Air Depot. "

To further this, here's a great shot of a B-24 wing - this wing was probably assembled in a jig, leading edge down with clamps and tooling holes keeping it in place. Long "planks" of skin was riveted to the ribs and with a corrugation sandwich between them - this is not an operation where a 50 foot structure that could take one day to complete - even if you throw 20 men on the assembly, they would just wind up getting in each others way....




Photo from Kalibab Journal
I could tell you that this methodology was the same for the P-3 wing something I am very familiar with. The only difference is instead of using corrugated aluminum, milled 7075 aluminum planks were riveted to the ribs - this was very time consuming and at best time it would take about 2 weeks to complete a set of P-3 wings which were about the same size of a B-24 wing (99 feet as opposed to 110).

I haven't even gotten into the other sub assemblies like the flight station, tailplane and fuel cell installation.....

You tell me if you think this aircraft could be built in a hour from first rivet to final assembly?!?!?

AND HERE'S MORE CONCERNING OTHER PROBLEMS IN SAN DIEGO....

"The nearer a B-24 came to its final assembly the fewer principles of mass production there were as we at Ford had developed and applied over the years. Here was a custom-made plane, put together as a tailor would cut and fit a suit of clothes.

The B-24's final assembly was made out of doors under the bright California sun and on a structural steel fixture. *The heat and temperature changes so distorted this fixture that it was impossible to turn out two planes alike without further adjustment. The Consolidated and the Air Force people talked about an order from Ford Motor Company for center and outer wing sections; but it was obvious that if the wing sections had uniform measurements, the way we made parts for automobiles, they would not fit properly under out-of-doors assembly conditions."*


----------



## Glider (Jan 2, 2006)

Changing the approach for a minute as ease of building proves from an operational point next to nothing. The RAF did have another bomber in squadron service in 1945 that was being built for the Tiger force which as far as I can see hasn't been mentioned in any of the postings and adresses all Syscoms comments. It was the Lancaster B mk IV renamed the Lincoln.
Its best to describe this as a Lancaster on Steroids. It was bigger, faster, flew higher, carried 22,000Lb bombs 1,470 miles, was armed with twin .50 in a remote controlled nose turret, twin .50 in the tail, one.50 in the ventral position, twin .50 or twin 20mm in the dorsal turret and had two pilots. 
I cannot be bothered to check but I am sure it was more difficult to build than a Lancaster but with some application I am equally sure that we were going to churn them out at least the same rate, as factories were beng set up in Canada as well as Australia and the UK but the war ended first.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> IMC?



*"Instrument. meteorological conditions" *


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 2, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Most of the pilot losses during WW2 for all sides wasn't even in combat, it was during training and many of those training losses were due to the aircraft impacting the terrain while under IMC....


"one a day in Tampa bay", I know. This is just an example of how many expensive is to train (or "build") an usable combat pilot.

DogW


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> And remember, Canada was not being bombed and there was plenty of US personell to help build the commonwealth aircraft.



True but even then a US citizen just couldn't cross the border and work, besides there were plenty of work for US citizens here and those Canadians supporting the war effort were very capable of doing the job needed....

In addition, when you build aircraft (even during a WW2 type environment) you just don't build until your heart's content - there is a number dictated by contract, when that number is reached, you stop building and I'm sure the Canadian Lancaster contract was totally fulfilled....

I could tell you that during my 28 years in aviation, 18 of them has been inside production facilities (Lockheed, Boeing Northrop, Sikorsky, Rohr Industries and McDonnell Douglas [RIP] ) The same amount of sweat that went into building an L-1011 went into the DC-10, each had their hard points as well as their easy ones. Even though we're now talking 50 years later, much of the methodology is still the same expect some sub assemblies can be assembled with computerized riveting machines and we see more composite structures. To say that the B-24 was better built or easier to build than any other plane is just hogwash based on the problems identified in Sorrenson's production line IN FACT what you have is a great example of Quantity vs. Quality and from what was shown here 18,000 plus B-24s were made because Sorrenson basically turned the production line into a "Throw Away" bomber, the same mentality used to produce the model "T"."


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 2, 2006)

I give a point to the Lanc being stronger than the B24.

If a factory can produce 24 planes per day, then its production rate is one per hour. Thats the important thing. Being able to assemble all those sub assemblies to a finished product.

And big deal if they had to go to mod centers. Not only does it give valuable flight hours to the pilots to ferry them around, but a bomber in hand that needs some modifications is worth a million still on the production order yet to fill. 

I dont think one aircraft produced by the allies ended not having to go to mod centers before they went into combat. Wasnt there a huge depot in the UK that performed nothing but mods? I think it was called BAD-1?

If anything, the production of the B24's proved that it could be built by the thousands.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> And big deal if they had to go to mod centers. Not only does it give valuable flight hours to the pilots to ferry them around, but a bomber in hand that needs some modifications is worth a million still on the production order yet to fill.


Wrong!!! Unless there is GFE (government furnished equipment) such as radios, guns, gunsights, etc. that were unavailable during normal production (which was very common during WW2), the only reason why you need a mod center is to make up for an inability during production - Quality vs. Quantity.

*And most of the Ferrying of these aircraft were done by "Service Pilots" or WASPS !!!!!*(see photo)


syscom3 said:


> I dont think one aircraft produced by the allies ended not having to go to mod centers before they went into combat. Wasnt there a huge depot in the UK that performed nothing but mods? I think it was called BAD-1?


Yes there were, to install GFE, and other combat related equipment not necessary for the delivery flight over to Europe. Consolidated's Mod centers made up for manufacturing deficiencies based on the "Automotive Type Production Line."


syscom3 said:


> If anything, the production of the B24's proved that it could be built by the thousands.


You could mass produce Noah's Ark if you set up any production line like Sorrenson did - just don't change the basic design.....


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 2, 2006)

I saw a pix this morning of hundreds of AAF pilots at Willow Run waiting to take a B24 "somewhere". When I find it again, I will post it. Plus Willow Run had an mechanics school adjacent to the facility where the recruits could learn first hand how to maintain the bomber. Take care of two things at once. Modify (or fix) the bomber and train the fledgling mechanic.

The WASPS flew some of the bombers around, regular AAF crews ferried others.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The WASPS flew some of the bombers around, regular AAF crews ferried others.



They ferried them over seas once a crew was assigned an airplane.

This site provides some information on how crews were assigned and given aircraft - most of the time this was done at a base...

http://www.armyairforces.com/

It was very common for every manufacturer to set up maintenance training at their facility. The school I went to when I first got my A&P licence was located at 96th Street and Sepulveda, just accross the street from LAX - or Mines Field, former home of NAA. B-25 mechanics were trained there....


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 2, 2006)

well you americans were truly amazing a Liberty ship was constructed in just under 72 hours from the laying of the keel so a b24 in under 24hours might seem possible even if it was done as a propaganda tool although I'm not to sure on the complexities of ship building


----------



## plan_D (Jan 2, 2006)

The Liberty ship programme was amazing, most of the time taken in construction was bringing all the pieces together. The U.S had the manpower, area and materials to build a ship that quickly. There were so many shipyards that just built little bits of the ship, then you brought them altogether in one shipyard. Banged it together and threw it into the sea. But don't be mistaken, it didn't actually take three days to build the ship. It was three days from the last ship rolling off to the next one. Most of the pieces would have already been built.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2006)

plan_D said:


> The Liberty ship programme was amazing, most of the time taken in construction was bringing all the pieces together. The U.S had the manpower, area and materials to build a ship that quickly. There were so many shipyards that just built little bits of the ship, then you brought them altogether in one shipyard. Banged it together and threw it into the sea. But don't be mistaken, it didn't actually take three days to build the ship. It was three days from the last ship rolling off to the next one. Most of the pieces would have already been built.



THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS! And Henry Kaiser did the same thing that Sorrenson did at Willow run - the only difference is ships don't change much during construction - engineers are always changing stuff when an aircraft is being produced..

ALSO the Liberty ships were welded - a lot easier to do than riveting. When riveting a ship together if you clench a rivet stem or put an eyebrow on the head, Who Cares! On an aircraft you clench or eyebrow a rivet, you're removing that rivet, a real pain and time-waster!!!!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 2, 2006)

I think the best way to solve this would be to ask, first off, what are the most important aspects of a World War II bomber? 

Numbers lost? Tonnage per plane lost? Tonnage per mission? Range? Ease of build? Survivability? Defensive armament?

All are important, I know but what would you all consider the top three? In some cases one can make up for the other, like survivability against ease of build. If an aircraft isn't too good in the survivability case, the ease of build could make up for it (at least in a country with a lot of people). 

Personally, I feel a heavy bomber should be able to drop more per mission, should be able to go a long way. If any are lost, the others should be able to make it up in tonnage and it should lose the least amount of people with every one lost. 

This means that any country would be able to have them, a mass of manpower is not required. And each raid is extremely heavy, even with a relatively small amount of bombers. 

What are your main points? Then we'll mix and match all the main points, then all the other points will be worth something. And we'll bring up a points system (major points and minor points) then add 'em together to find the best bomber overall (out of Lancaster and B-24)

I will split them into catergories - everyone must pick one from each catergory (note: What I did above was an example and not my full choice);

Defensive (Defensive armament, agility, numbers lost).
Offensive (Tonnage per plane lost, Tonnage per mission, range, payload)
Airframe (Ease of build, versatility [number of roles, in all service life], cost, ease of handling)
Combat (Theatres during War, crew opinions, sorties flown). 
Survivability (Strength of airframe, cruise speed, top speed)

Each catergory will have a main choice, the rest will be minor. We'll decide when we've got it all in, who wants what (then they'll be another argument over what's more important). 

My choices; 

Defensive; Agility (I don't feel defensive armament is any help)
Offensive; Tonnage per sortie (Less bombers for equal tonnage)
Airframe; Ease of handling (Pilots should be able to get into it, and fly it!)
Combat; Crew opinion (What the crew thought of it in combat is just like the bible!)
Survivability; Cruise speed (It wants to be in and out fast)

Remember, all other points will get some points for the plane, just not as many. Now all decide on your major points, then we can argue some more about which are the major points. Oh yeah, and state your reasons so we have something to argue about.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Personally, I feel a heavy bomber should be able to drop more per mission, should be able to go a long way. If any are lost, the others should be able to make it up in tonnage and it should lose the least amount of people with every one lost.



Damn, Bomber Harris would be proud of you!!!!!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 2, 2006)

Heres my first shot at it.

Defensive:
defensive armament - B24
agility - Lanc (although any fighter can out maneuver a bomber)
numbers lost - (I dont know the answer to this one. Lanc flew in the more deadly ETO. B24 flew in the PTO with a different set of operational problems)

Offensive 
Tonnage per plane lost - Lanc
Tonnage per mission - Lanc (I discounted B24 maritime patrol and cargo missions)
range - Lanc
payload - Lanc

Airframe 
Ease of build - B24
versatility - (Tie)
cost - B24
ease of handling - Lanc

Combat
Theatres during War - B24
crew opinions (unknown for me to rate it right now)
sorties flown - B24 (in all roles related to WW2 missions)

Survivability
Strength of airframe (Tie. B24 has a weaker wing, Lanc has liquid cooled engines and a single pilot)
cruise speed - Lanc
top speed - Lanc


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Heres my first shot at it.
> 
> Defensive:
> defensive armament - B24
> ...



Well based on your input the Lanc wins - and ease of production was never proven, what was shown was more B-24s were built in a bigger factory(s) because of more people and resources.....

The Lancaster was super maneuvable for it's size - even on 3 or less engines the Lanc flew well. The 24 was a nice flying aircraft until it lost an engine, then it turned into a turd...


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 2, 2006)

Lets not jump to conclusions so soon.

Each question has a different numerical value.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Lets not jump to conclusions so soon.
> 
> Each question has a different numerical value.



Yep and here's 100% where it mattered...

*Offensive 
Tonnage per plane lost - Lanc 
Tonnage per mission - Lanc (I discounted B24 maritime patrol and cargo missions) 
range - Lanc 
payload - Lanc*


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 2, 2006)

I have to agree with you there.

Although the stats would have changed quite a bit if the Lanc had to operate in the PTO.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 2, 2006)

But you have just agreed that the Lancaster was the better overall bomber. Since the most important aspects of a bomber are it's ability to bomb at long ranges, and carry a lot to bomb with. 

If the Lancaster was operating in the PTO, with let's say 10 on one mission. One or two of those Lancasters have to turn back due to engine trouble, the rest will still drop more tonnage if all 10 of the B-24s on the same mission arrived. 

Plus, I don't see how the Merlin was unreliable. After all, the Spitfire, Hurricane and Mustang operated in the CBI with the Merlin.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 3, 2006)

I never said the merlin was unreliable. I said the Merlin is prone prone to damage (as any liquid cooled engine is).

The loss rate goes up because of that, and eventually you have more B24's available to continue the war.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2006)

I agree that a liquid cooled engine is prone to battle damage, but the Lancaster could fly on one engine. To knock a Lancaster out of the sky, you have to do more than damage it's engines. 

The B-24 numbers would have to be double the Lancaster to make up the tonnage dropped. With ten crew in each B-24, compared to the seven in a Lancaster per one hundred of each, you have 1000 : 700. To make up the tonnage you have 2000 : 700. That's a lot of manpower for that amount of tonnage. 

Picture this, a formation of Lancaster's over Burma. It's 50 planes strong, during the day, with escorts from Mustangs. The Japanese planes are weak, they're slow and the Mustangs are more than enough to handle them. If any manage to get in close, the .303cal while weak by European standards would still manage to ignite a Zero or Oscar. The Lancaster hasn't got any problems over the PTO or CBI because it can make up any deficiency by dropping twice the tonnage of the B-24. There doesn't need to be many Lancasters in comparison, and you don't need half the men to do the same task. 

Think of the Lancaster as the Royal Navy of the 18th Century. Stationing an army in every colony of the Empire would be impossible. So, Britain had a massive navy that had a lot of men which it could move around the globe. So, instead of having 30,000 people (say 10,000 in each colony, ample for protection) it had 10,000 people in the navy that could defend anywhere with movement. 
Well, the Lancaster was like that...instead of having 30,000 people in 3000 bombers that would make sure at least some got through, but wouldn't cause much damage. It wouldn't have the manpower...so, it had a bomber that carried more but used less people. So, what would have been 30,000 people would be 13,000 for the same tonnage ...and the 17,000 could go elsewhere.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 3, 2006)

and for the last bloody time- the lanc was fitted with radials and was more than capable of being produced on a large scale!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Untill someones posts some factory production times, then the B24 wins cause theres data for it.



Negative all you have proven is the Production Capacity of the US. That has never been disputed. Until you can find in writing that the B-24 was easier to build than the Lancaster, then we do not have to produce anything to counter it. The B-24 was built in more numbers than the P-40 Warhawk, does that mean it was easier to build than a P-40 Warhawk. I don think so.



FLYBOYJ said:


> *"Instrument. meteorological conditions"*



And that is still the leading cause of crashes and death umong United States Army Helicopters today. 



syscom3 said:


> Lets not jump to conclusions so soon.
> 
> Each question has a different numerical value.



No based off everything you just said up there, you just proved the Lancaster was better. You are fighting a losing battle.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2006)

And since you are so hell bent on Lancaster production figures go to this site right here and it gives it to you.

http://www.lancaster-archive.com/Plant_Orders.htm

I went ahead and tallied it up and this is what I came up with. All of of the Lancaster production facilities together averaged 288 Lancasters a week. That comes down to 41 Lancasters a day. So which were produced faster.

This to me is still not an indication of which was easier to build. So basically you have proved nothing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And since you are so hell bent on Lancaster production figures go to this site right here and it gives it to you.
> 
> http://www.lancaster-archive.com/Plant_Orders.htm
> 
> ...



Great Site Adler! Yep all that was proven that several huge plants pumped out B-24s like they were Fords, set up facilities so JIT (Just In Time) production methods can be utilized, dumped a bunch a people on these lines to make the impossible happen, and somewhat compromised quality for quantity. I'll state again, any aircraft could of been subject to this scenario, the B-24 production line just had the distinction of being one of the first mass produced items subjected to this type of production methodology which has become very popular today. Bottom line the B-24 was no more or no less difficult to build than a B-17, Lancaster, Halifax or C-47....


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 3, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And since you are so hell bent on Lancaster production figures go to this site right here and it gives it to you.
> 
> http://www.lancaster-archive.com/Plant_Orders.htm
> 
> ...



I looked at that link and it had data for average construction per week and it was only in the "teens". Best was "A.V. Roe Co. Ltd., Newton Heath, Manchester." which had a best of 25 per WEEK, (from 11/42 through 6/43. This was followed up by 21 per WEEK (from 6/43 to 12/43).

Hmmmmm........ werent the US plants building that many per day?

How come the Canadian plant was only averaging 4 per week?

And if its one thing I've proven, is surprisingly, the Lancaster experts here hadnt thought of this point.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> How come the Canadian plant was only averaging 4 per week?



That's all they might of been contracted to produce.....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 3, 2006)

Not sure really. I know the first Canadian built Lanc rolled out of the plant in September 1943, and all of the ones built here were Mk.X's, which supposedly went exclusively to No. 6 (Canadian) Bomber Group. The Mk.X was also a bit heavier than previous marks, so that coupled with the relative inexperience of the Canadian production team upon starting up...Who knows? Just a guess.

But they were well built, you can be sure.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 3, 2006)

I thought that Lancs were needed everywhere. Wasnt this plant in location that couldnt be bombed?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 3, 2006)

Malton, Ontario. As safe as could be.


----------



## Erich (Jan 3, 2006)

thought I would go with something different as you all discuss the B-24 vs the Lanc prodcuton et al

B-25, how's that ? 8)


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 3, 2006)

According to this official AAF document, here is the production totals for B24's during the best 4 months of production.

Sustained production from March - June 1944, factory acceptances = 3731.

if we average it out at 16 weeks, then its 233 per week.

or if we average it out on a daily basis (122 days), then its 30.6.

Now does anyone have a similar chart for the Lanc?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And since you are so hell bent on Lancaster production figures go to this site right here and it gives it to you.
> 
> http://www.lancaster-archive.com/Plant_Orders.htm
> 
> ...



Adler already posted this


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 3, 2006)

Forgot to add the Link.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t076.pdf


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 3, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > And since you are so hell bent on Lancaster production figures go to this site right here and it gives it to you.
> ...



The link doesnt list the monthly production totals. If there is a link on it that does, its not apparent for me.

So far all we know about the Lanc is there were several factories building them and what the average weekly production rate was. I would like to see the best four months production of the Lanc. and compare it to the B24. 

You can play around with the numbers to prove or disprove anything, so lets keep it consistant. I listed four months production and gave you two numbers, one for 16 weeks and one for 122 days. Compare your numbers to that.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 3, 2006)

Erich said:


> thought I would go with something different as you all discuss the B-24 vs the Lanc prodcuton et al
> 
> B-25, how's that ? 8)



We can start a whole thread on aircraft production rates for all combatants. I wouldnt be surprised that the Luftwaffee turned in some impressive numbers for the fighters.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 3, 2006)

ok, so you want the best 4 months?? i'm working from a book so this'll take a bit of addition on my part, so far as i can tell (i may be wrong) that'd be June- September 1944

June- 263
July- 276
August- 273
September- 281

that's 1093 bombers in 4 months, that's 68 a week, that's 10 a day (rounding off), that's with 29,600 employees, willow run alone emplyed over 42,000


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Erich said:
> 
> 
> > thought I would go with something different as you all discuss the B-24 vs the Lanc prodcuton et al
> ...



Ask your self this too - How many MORE people were employed on B-24 construction? We had the people and resources under a peacetime environment, the Brits didn't and it seems the Lanc built in Canada went to their squadrons. Production numbers don't mean much if you're production force is 3x larger than what you're comparing to...

I think the only things shown here were...

1. The Lancaster was no harder or easier to build than the B-24.

2. The B-24 achieved its production numbers based on a huge workforce that used Automotive Type production lines that sometimes compromised quantity for quality.

3. All B-24 production facilities had manufacturing problems documented to the point that they came up on several occasions during texts posted here, the worse in my opinion being the lack of component interchangeability, a major issue if you're an aircraft maintainer.

4. The Lancaster, despite being built under "Wartime Conditions" posted impressive production numbers and really didn't go into full scale production until the spring of 1942.

5. The only fact that came out of this was there were more B-24s built than Lancasters. This had nothing to do with ease of manufacture but rather resources, methods and manpower. Any other aircraft could of been manufactured at the same rate if produced under the same conditions....


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 3, 2006)

> Ask your self this too - How many MORE people were employed on B-24 construction? We had the people and resources under a peacetime environment, the Brits didn't and it seems the Lanc built in Canada went to their squadrons. Production numbers don't mean much if you're production force is 3x larger than what you're comparing to...



I think the only things shown here were...



> 1. The Lancaster was no harder or easier to build than the B-24.



Still hasnt been proven or disproven. An aircraft thats easy to build is one that lends itself well to mass production. 



> 2. The B-24 achieved its production numbers based on a huge workforce that used Automotive Type production lines that sometimes compromised quantity for quality.



B24 gets points for being mass produced in suck quantities, the quality issue was nearly irrelevant. Remember those stories of how the FEAF in 1945 was told not to make any major repairs to heavily damaged B24's as a new one would be assigned?



> 3. All B-24 production facilities had manufacturing problems documented to the point that they came up on several occasions during texts posted here, the worse in my opinion being the lack of component interchangeability, a major issue if you're an aircraft maintainer.



Agreed. Fortunatly it didnt impact the deployment or availability of the planes once the logistical pipeline as opened up and hordes of mechanics could fix them as needed.



> 4. The Lancaster, despite being built under "Wartime Conditions" posted impressive production numbers and really didn't go into full scale production until the spring of 1942.



Why werent the Canadians involved earlier to build the planes under peacetime conditions? 



> 5. The only fact that came out of this was there were more B-24s built than Lancasters. This had nothing to do with ease of manufacture but rather resources, methods and manpower. Any other aircraft could of been manufactured at the same rate if produced under the same conditions....



OK, for the sake of your argument, B24 and Lanc are tied for ease of manufacture. B24 gets points for being built far in excess of the Lanc.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 3, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Why werent the Canadians involved earlier to build the planes under peacetime conditions?


They were approached about it around the same time that it first went into full production in Britain, in mid 1942. It took almost a year to set things up at the Victory Aircraft Plant in Malton before the ball got rolling production wise. As it turned out, they all went to RCAF squadrons anyway by the look of it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Still hasnt been proven or disproven. An aircraft thats easy to build is one that lends itself well to mass production.



Agree, and it seems the only information found herein were problems with B-24 production




> 2. The B-24 achieved its production numbers based on a huge workforce that used Automotive Type production lines that sometimes compromised quantity for quality.





syscom3 said:


> B24 gets points for being mass produced in suck quantities, the quality issue was nearly irrelevant. Remember those stories of how the FEAF in 1945 was told not to make any major repairs to heavily damaged B24's as a new one would be assigned?


There had to be 5 mod centers to "finish" B-24s due to factory deficiencies, I'd say that's a big quality problem..



syscom3 said:


> Why werent the Canadians involved earlier to build the planes under peacetime conditions?


Probably because of lack of people, Canada's 1943 population was 11,795,000, I would guess a good portion of the male population was in the military. Additionally companies weren't forced to build large aircraft during the war, if a company had no experience in building large aircraft, they probably won't bid on the contract because of risk. If you look at aircraft built in Canada during WW2 with the exception of the Lancaster, they seem more tailored for a smaller easier trained workforce (Mosquito, Harvard, Anson, Defiant, Helldiver, and Hurricane) 


syscom3 said:


> > 5. The only fact that came out of this was there were more B-24s built than Lancasters. This had nothing to do with ease of manufacture but rather resources, methods and manpower. Any other aircraft could of been manufactured at the same rate if produced under the same conditions....
> 
> 
> 
> OK, for the sake of your argument, B24 and Lanc are tied for ease of manufacture. B24 gets points for being built far in excess of the Lanc.


I could agree with that except the B-24 production workforce was way greater than the Lancaster workforce and they didn't have the benefit of a "production line" custom built factory.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 3, 2006)

The workman (and woman) who manned the factories whether in Canada or the US, both had the same set of skills when it came to factory work.... namely nothing.

And the B24 quality problems were manageable. If it werent, then the AAF would have shut down the lines. And if a plane has to go to a mod center to receive GFE anyway, and the quality issues could be corrected at the same time, then no harm, no foul.

And if the brits asked for the US to help set up a factory in Canada with production methods like the US was going to use, then maybe the Lanc would see the same production results.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The workman (and woman) who manned the factories whether in Canada or the US, both had the same set of skills when it came to factory work.... namely nothing.


unless they were already employed in the aviation business they had to trained from ground up - agreed


syscom3 said:


> And the B24 quality problems were manageable. If it werent, then the AAF would have shut down the lines. And if a plane has to go to a mod center to receive GFE anyway, and the quality issues could be corrected at the same time, then no harm, no foul.


WRONG - during the war (and even today) there were completion clauses in the contracts between aircraft manufacturers and the government where if you didn't complete a unit on time or if a Product Deficiency Report (PDR) was written against a unit, progress payments were held up or payment was reduced by a pre-determined amount. There were government contract adminstrators on site overseeing this at all times.



syscom3 said:


> And if the brits asked for the US to help set up a factory in Canada with production methods like the US was going to use, then maybe the Lanc would see the same production results.


Perhaps, but for what ever reasons, they didn't...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2006)

Syscom have you ever thought that the British and Canadian factories were not the same size as the US ones? They did not have the producion capacity to build the amounts that the US did. So again your argument still does not hold up.

You also said these things:



> Still hasnt been proven or disproven.



Yeap and you have not proven it, so you can not say it was easier to build. Until you prove it, and the only way you can do so, is to find someone who built both aircraft who can say which one was easier. You are not going to find that. Therefore this argument is thrown out. 



> B24 gets points for being built far in excess of the Lanc.



And that proves what?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 4, 2006)

Well just speaking from the Canadian perspective for a moment, FBJ made a good point about the population of this country at the time. It was very small, and as with the other nations involved, with most of the men either off fighting in the war or involved with the various training programs underway, much of the hastily erected production set-up was manned by inexperienced labourers. Realistically, try as we might, Canada's production capacity could never have hoped to reach the level of the United States or even Great Britain. Remember as well that the Canadian military was still building up almost from scratch, so a lot of the time we naturally tended to focus on our own forces needs first. But as Canadian assets were usually mixed into the greater overall Commonwealth force anyway (such as with No.6 Group, Bomber Command), that point is really rather moot.

As it was, when it came to aircraft production we largely stuck to smaller designs like the Hurricanes, Ansons, Mosquitos, etc., as FBJ mentioned. Obvious exceptions being the Lancasters and Cansos (Canadian built Catalina PBY).


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 4, 2006)

FLYBOYJ, 

Often Production lines raise quality because of the consistency required to repeat an operation hundreds of times in a row. Many/all aircraft manufacturers had "MOD" centers, not only did they correct deficencies, often they were used as final finishing, and even more often they were used to upgrade the production to the newest or desired version. Todays auto plants use a two week window at Christmas and the 4th of July to do running model changovers, things like grills and trim, more extensive changes may take several months these downtimes were not acceptable in war time except for extream cases. Durring the war they used the "MOD" centers for this. Do know how many were dedicated to quality problems?

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 4, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> WeObvious exceptions being the Lancasters and Cansos (Canadian built Catalina PBY).



Ah! Forgot the ole Canso!



wmaxt said:



> FLYBOYJ,
> 
> Often Production lines raise quality because of the consistency required to repeat an operation hundreds of times in a row. Many/all aircraft manufacturers had "MOD" centers, not only did they correct deficiencies, often they were used as final finishing, and even more often they were used to upgrade the production to the newest or desired version. Today's auto plants use a two week window at Christmas and the 4th of July to do running model changovers, things like grills and trim, more extensive changes may take several months these downtimes were not acceptable in war time except for extream cases. Durring the war they used the "MOD" centers for this. Do know how many were dedicated to quality problems?
> 
> wmaxt



I could tell you that not being able to incorporate a "MOD" be it manufacturing, engineering or by customer request today AND during WW2 during aircraft production is the biggest cardinal sin any aircraft manufacturer can make, I've confirmed that with folks I worked with at Lockheed who were on the B-17 (Vega) and P-38 production lines and I've had this discussion before with WW2 era employees from Douglas and Northrop. When I worked the P-3 assembly line I was told by my then supervisor that the paperwork format being used was almost identical to the format used in the later part of WW2. While true some mods were done at MOD Centers, this action was usually to install GFE (Government Furnished Equipment) or to incorporate customer driven modifications NEGOTIATED to be accomplished outside the origin of manufacture. There were and still are contract clauses that mandate full completion of product at time of delivery and if this wasn't met you either had payments with held until the mod was complete or you had to give money back to the government, something that even during WW2 I know any aircraft manufacturer didn't want to do. The case with Consolidated on the B-24 was due to a rapidly moving assembly line (like you see at an auto plant) which resulted in mods not being able to be accomplished. It was a matter of "damned the torpedoes, keep moving." Even today aircraft manufacturers can be placed in that situation, but if the mod incorporation process is not completed at the factory, all you're doing is buying time for a non-completion penalty....

You cannot compare automotive production to aircraft in as much you don't have a continual movement of the "line" and when mods are incorporated, many facets of the production environment are involved (engineering, manufacturing, QA and finally the customer in the form of a government representative, either a civilian employee or an actual member of the branch of the military procuring the aircraft). Sometimes a simple mod that might change an electrical junction box may take weeks to do because of the paperwork and the approval process involved in building an airplane. If cars were built under the same stringent "manufacturing bureaucracy" as aircraft (especially military aircraft), the cheapest cars would cost $50,000 and take 3x as long to build....

I do know that the biggest dedicated quality problems found on aircraft during WW2 were fuel tank leaks, various electrical problems (which can always happen) and interchangeability problems (which is more of a manufacturing engineering problem than a quality problem).

In my opinion the only way you could crank out aircraft in an "automotive style" type of production environment is to build an aircraft with a "frozen" design so no mods need to be incorporated, have a highly skilled workforce available so minimal production line deficiencies are encountered or minimizing the deficiency risk by designing the aircraft to be "manufacturing" friendly or a combination of all of the above - something that Consolidated might of accomplished by war's end....


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 5, 2006)

Well, considering the huge number of b24's that were accepted, the quality issues were not considred a big deal. Gen Marshall and Gen Arnold were not dummy's. If the B24's quality issue was considered a "show stopper" they would have fixed the problem right away.

And there were plenty of non combat roles for any B24 that rolled of the assembly line that could not have been modified economically for front line use. ilots and mechanics needed to be trained, so the training commands could use them. Transports were always in demand so they could get some. Even the sub hunters could use them as all they needed to do was lug some depth charges.

The production of the B24 deserves accolades and brings credit to consolidated for designing a bomber that was so adaptable for mass production.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The production of the B24 deserves accolades and brings credit to consolidated for designing a bomber that was so adaptable for mass production.



To produce 18,000 bombers accolades are deserved, but it wasn't the design of the bomber that accomplished this, the B-24 was rapidly designed which was evident by many "shortcuts" inherent in its appearance - as shown it was Sorrenson designing a production facility around the bomber that allowed this to happen - the B-24 went together basically the same way as the Lancaster or the B-17 - any other large aircraft could of been subjected to these production numbers if given the same opportunity....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2006)

I agree. If the Lancaster had been built in the US I am sure the production numbers would have been higher. Not because the the British were not good eneogh but just because the US capacity was larger.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jan 6, 2006)

The B-24 production was crazy, but then look at the total production of US industry and you get an idea of what we put out. The US produced all the C-47 and C-53 aircraft, it was producing for all The Soviets, and others as for its self. It had to take a very poorly educated population and train them to fight, and weld.

Also all those factories had the unplesent habbit of strikes, like Willow Run had that slowed it all down.

As for German fighters bf-109 numbers did rise latter in the war, and in all built 34,000 or so.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2006)

fact is production numbers aren't really gonna prove anything, this all started when sys said the B-24 was easier to build, ever since we've been trying to tell them they were pretty much the same and anything can be mass produced................


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 6, 2006)

You dont have any monthly production numbers. I do. untill you can prove that the Lanc was built faster, the B24 wins this catagory.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> You dont have any monthly production numbers. I do. untill you can prove that the Lanc was built faster, the B24 wins this catagory.



Wins what?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2006)

actually i do have monthly production figures, some of which i have actually posted  and they prove that yes, the B-24 was coming out the doors faster, that does NOT prove that she was easier to build, and it's unlikely you're ever going to prove that so just give it a break......


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 6, 2006)

I didnt see anything about monthly production numbers for the lanc. repost it so i can check it out.

Complex aircraft require more time to build as compared to simple aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2006)

it's late so i wont post them now, but 



> Complex aircraft require more time to build as compared to simple aircraft



the figures you've posted, primarily the "one an hour" is not the time it takes to BUILD an aircraft, it's the time to ASSEMBLE part from sub assemblies, you haven't proved how long it takes to build at all.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I didnt see anything about monthly production numbers for the lanc. repost it so i can check it out.
> 
> Complex aircraft require more time to build as compared to simple aircraft.



There's nothing simple or complex about B-24 OR Lancaster construction - All right the Lancaster was slightly larger than the B-24, but I bet you could swap assemblers from either factory and they'll perform just as well


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 6, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> it's late so i wont post them now, but
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The fact that an aircraft is delivered each hour has nothing to do with the actual build time, which may be closer to 3 weeks on various sub assembly lines.

The car plant, I helped change over to a new model, turned out a car every 60 seconds on each of two production lines. The reality though was 4 hours stamping, 8 hours assembly/welding, 8 hours paint, 8 hours interior trim/wiring, 12 hours drivetrain/misc or 40 hours in just final assembly. The subassemblies like seats, engines, transmissions, instruments even carpets (molding and attaching insulation) are all done off site and take another 5min to 4 hours each to assemble before being sent to the assembly plant. An aircraft is 100 times more complex and intricate as well as the numbers of indivdual parts assembled, each with hundreds of rivets.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> The fact that an aircraft is delivered each hour has nothing to do with the actual build time, *which may be closer to 3 weeks on various sub assembly lines.*
> 
> *The car plant, I helped change over to a new model, turned out a car every 60 seconds on each of two production lines. The reality though was 4 hours stamping, 8 hours assembly/welding, 8 hours paint, 8 hours interior trim/wiring, 12 hours drivetrain/misc or 40 hours in just final assembly.* The subassemblies like seats, engines, transmissions, instruments even carpets (molding and attaching insulation) are all done off site and take another 5min to 4 hours each to assemble before being sent to the assembly plant. *An aircraft is 100 times more complex and intricate as well as the numbers of indivdual parts assembled, each with hundreds of rivets.*
> wmaxt



Thanks wmaxt - SYSCOM, ARE YOU THERE?!?!


----------



## Glider (Jan 6, 2006)

Five gets you ten he ducks this


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2006)

Glider said:


> Five gets you ten he ducks this



maybe!?  

But then again he might say this was built in 20 minutes....  






or this






or this






or these


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 6, 2006)

Or these:


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 6, 2006)

If the Lanc factory puts out 12 lancs per day, I'd say it was building 1 every two hours.

If the car factory had 1000 cars per day leave the factory, I d say its building them at 41.67 per hours.

Whoc ares how long the sub assemblies take. Its the final prooduct that counts


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> If the Lanc factory puts out 12 lancs per day, I'd say it was building 1 every two hours.
> 
> If the car factory had 1000 cars per day leave the factory, I d say its building them at 41.67 per hours.
> 
> Whoc ares how long the sub assemblies take. Its the final prooduct that counts



If completed - ?!?

And something else to think about - the one an hour number is based on an aircraft rolling out the door - out on the flight line there are a whole bunch of things to do - service it with liquids, make sure there's no fuel leaks, ground runs and production test flights....


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 6, 2006)

The B24 could be serviced faster as it didnt have liquid cooled engines to worry the ground crews about.

Whats your point about the post production servicing? The planes built, and just needs some gas and oil and a pilot and off it goes.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The B24 could be serviced faster as it didnt have liquid cooled engines to worry the ground crews about.


Don't forget hydraulic fluid, and I'll agree in-line engines = Gylcol.


syscom3 said:


> Whats your point about the post production servicing? The planes built, and just needs some gas and oil and a pilot and off it goes.



Get ready here it comes - *WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!!*

Even at the height of WW2,* EVERY *aircraft produced was subject to a least one functional check flight, the goal was one flight to ring things out and then get the aircraft delivered. Larger aircraft also had to go into "fuel soak,: where they would fill the aircraft full of fuel and let it sit at least a day to see if any fuel leaks occured. Additionally all the electrical wiring had to be "wrung out" they were tested for shorts and breaks, again this was accomplished prior to the first flight and still took some time to do.

Go to the site "Wreckchasers," there's several P-38s, Hudsons andf other aircraft around Burbank that crashed during their first production teat flight....

You never jump in a brand new airplane and just "go." Not in 1943 or 2006!  

Here's some P-38s that crashed around Burbank during the war during test flights...










Here's a Ventura that Crashed during test flight...

"Local Man Guides Officers to the Site of Bomber Crash
ACTON - 3/2/44 - Four men were killed last Thursday in the crash of a Navy patrol bomber on the upper slopes of Mt. McDill about ten miles west of Palmdale. William Ritter of Palmdale acted as guide to the group of officials who hiked up to the wreckage of the plane, after it had been sighted by a Lockheed test pilot. 

Those killed in the crash were George G. Dory, 20, pilot of North Hollywood; Paul T. Sunday, 36, copilot of Beverly Hills; Donald L. Jackson of Roscoe, 30, crew chief; and James P. Sergeant, 30, radioman of Glendale."


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 6, 2006)

So youre saying that US airplanes had a post production test flight and british plane had none?

Shouldnt we include the ferry flight to what ever base?

And what does this have to do with the production of an aircraft. This is post production stuff. It falls under the catagory of "post production and first assignment"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> So youre saying that US airplanes had a post production test flight and british plane had none?


I can't answer that - I didn't work around many Brits that worked production flight lines in WW2, but I would guess they would of done at least one test flight after production


syscom3 said:


> Shouldnt we include the ferry flight to what ever base?


No - if you had a problem you wanted it identified and corrected as close as possible to the plant. During the test flight there were specific things done to the aircraft (Stalls, slow flight, raising and lowering landing gear etc.) thatr you wouldn't want to do enroute to a base...


syscom3 said:


> And what does this have to do with the production of an aircraft. This is post production stuff. It falls under the catagory of "post production and first assignment"



It has everything to do with production - there is a 60 year old government form callled a DD-250, when that form is completed the contractor gets paid and that happens at delivery - 

If an aircraft goes out on a test flight and comes back with "squawks" they have to get fixed before the government accepts the aircraft - 1943 or 2006, it's still the same....


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 6, 2006)

Im referring not to defects in production that is required to be fixed by the contractor, but to govt OK to procede with the shipment of the airplane even if it has items that need to be installed at a later date (such as turrets).


----------



## Glider (Jan 7, 2006)

You will not be suprised to know that the RAF did test fly new aircraft before they were delivered. It was one of the assignments that pilots could be given whe 'resting' between tours.

Some rest


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 7, 2006)

yes indeed lancasters were given a post production test flight, in this they had a pilot and flight engineer and they tested at various boosts, speeds, revs and it was recommended that all aircraft be dived to 360mph along with feathering all props, testing the bomb doors, vacuum pump, undercarage and all controlls, i have a copy of the letter signed by H. Brown, Avro's chief test pilot, dated 29/1/43 given to all test facilities telling them what to do..........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 7, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Im referring not to defects in production that is required to be fixed by the contractor, but to govt OK to procede with the shipment of the airplane even if it has items that need to be installed at a later date (such as turrets).



Agree, and in some cases turrets were GFE....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 7, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes indeed lancasters were given a post production test flight, in this they had a pilot and flight engineer and they tested at various boosts, speeds, revs and it was recommended that all aircraft be dived to 360mph along with feathering all props, testing the bomb doors, vacuum pump, undercarage and all controlls, i have a copy of the letter signed by H. Brown, Avro's chief test pilot, dated 29/1/43 given to all test facilities telling them what to do..........



BINGO!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 7, 2006)

it is also worthy of note that of ALL the lancasters produced, only one was lost on these pre-production test flights, PB579, when the Avro test pilot Sid Gleave put the aircraft into a steap dive and was approaching 360mph when a pannel on the wing broke off, hitting the elevators making them ineffective, the flight engineer harry Barnes was also killed, that's not too bad going...............


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 7, 2006)

Interesting! I know there were many aircraft lost around Southern California during the war years. Within about a hundred mile radius, you had Lockheed, Douglas, North American, Northrop, Vultee, and further south Consolidated, all pumping aircraft out like there was no tomorrow. In addition there were mod centers, at least 3 that I'm aware of - a lot of activity and a lot chances for something to go wrong....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2006)

All aircraft recieve acceptance test flights from the service before they are delivered. It is still the case today. 

Syscom what do you not understand about how a plane is built. Why do you think it is so easy? Take it from people like myself and FBJ who actually work with aircraft. It is not your Chevy Silverado. It is more complex. *It does not take 1 hour to build a B-24! It may take 1 hour to put the subassy together, but that I really doubt also. They just ran out the doors every hour. It took more like 3 weeks or more to actually build a B-24.* Get over it! Jesus Christ! Is it so simple that you can not understand it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2006)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2006)

Damn I dont know how many times people have to tell him that. He still thinks that it takes one hour to build a B-24 from start to finish.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 8, 2006)

If a factory delivers 24 airplanes in one day, then its takes one hour to build that plane.

Who cares how much time it takes ot build a sub assembly, cause its the final product that counts.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> If a factory delivers 24 airplanes in one day, then its takes one hour to build that plane.
> 
> Who cares how much time it takes ot build a sub assembly, cause its the final product that counts.



Beacuse without a sub assembly (ie. vertical stabilizer, propeller, aileron) the plane ain't going anywhere and it's the total manhours that go into the aircraft (including flinal assembly) that actually determine the actually manhours it takes to build an aircraft...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2006)

In 1943 comparative stability arrived. Plant expansion had taken place, material shortages were eased, and management had adjusted to quantity orders, subcontracting, licensing, line production, and large organizations. Designs could now be reasonably standardized, and 87 percent of the production from 1940 to 1944 was of only nineteen models. Plant layouts were changed to eliminate backtracking of components, and assembly lines were instituted: production was scheduled and controlled to produce the continuous, smooth processes necessary for quantity production; tool engineering was centralized, and manufacturing information was organized and coordinated even between companies. The automobile industry became a partner and contributed greatly to the use of line-production techniques. *An example of their contribution is in B-24 fuselage fabrication: where Convair had assembled a shell and then installed equipment, Ford formed two half-shells, installed the equipment, and then united them. Since production becomes increasingly difficult as a product becomes more dense, a trend which has been characteristic *of aircraft design, this simple improvement was an important one. The usefulness of the automobile industry was greater in this period of wartime equilibrium than it was at earlier or later stages, for the car manufacturers' system emphasized elaborate and time-consuming tooling, which must have long production runs of fixed designs to be economical. 
*Rough spots remained. Spare parts were not ordered in a way to minimize the disruption of production. Labor turnover, shortages, and absenteeism were a problem. The aircraft industry recruited women, the aged, the disabled, high school boys, farmers, and workers from service businesses such as automobile salesmen for the labor force, but this did not relieve a shortage of skilled workers. For too long Convair was unable to make the transition to quantity production, and had a midwar reorganization of its management. The conflict between quantity production and design change was not fully resolved in any company. A compromise solution attempted to make the best of the situation: factory design changes were introduced less often than required for combat, safety, or efficiency, and finished aircraft were then reworked in a "modification center." In another kind of change, bigger bombers and transports continued to claim increasing emphasis through 1945.*

http://www.generalatomic.com/jetmakers/chapter1.html


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2006)

AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION MANHOURS

B-29
At the end of the war Boeing-Wichita was producing 4.2 Superfortresses per working day for an average of 100 a month, which was the army's schedule, and had reduced the number of manhours from *157,000*, the average required for the first 100 bombers, to *less than 20,000.* Of the 3,888 Superfortresses built by all factories, 1,644 were Wichita made. 

B-24
In 1940, the man-hours required to build one B-24 would build fourteen Liberators by 1943. By 1944, the production lines at San Diego and at the Ford, Willow Run facility was turning out a completed B-24 every hour! Over 8,000 Liberators, almost one-half of total production, were built in San Diego alone. By 1944, the Consolidated-Vultee payroll alone included more than 101,000 workers in ten states, operating 13 manufacturing, modification, research, and operating divisions.

The enormous accomplishment of the men and women from Willow Run can only be appreciated when one fully realizes that in 1941, *before Ford entered the aircraft industry, it required 201,826 man-hours to manufacture a single B-24 bomber.* In March 1944, Ford's procedures of mass production had reduced those man-hours to only* 17,357.*

BRITISH

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-Civil-WarProduction/UK-Civil-WarProduction-4.html#fn89

As early as January 1940 when the first wartime programme embodying the heavy bombers was settled, it was reckoned that ratios of weight to man-hours would, for the principal types, work out as follows:

Airframe structure weight
Average man-hours thousands
lb. structure weight per 1,000 man-hours


*1940 Statistics*


FIGHTERS
lb.
thousands


Spitfire
2,055
15.2
135

Hurricane
2,468
10.3
240

Whirlwind
3,461
26.6
130

Tornado
3,600
15.5
233

BOMBERS

Battle
4,466
24
186

Whitley
9,557
52
184

Wellington
10,117
38
266

Manchester
15,650
* 52.1*
300

Halifax
16,157
* 76*
213

Stirling
26,630
* 75* 
314

Perhaps Lanc has numbers on the Lancaster as this was 1940 only, I'm sure these numbers went down substancially by the end of the war.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 9, 2006)

Excellent info!

Ive been trying to find these numbers for the past two weeks without success.

Can you send me a PM with the link?

THANKS AGAIN!!!!!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2006)

And since the Lancaster and Manchester are similar I am sure the man hours are the pretty equal to one another.

Good post there FBJ, somehow though I think that this is still not eneogh for him.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 9, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And since the Lancaster and Manchester are similar I am sure the man hours are the pretty equal to one another.
> 
> Good post there FBJ, somehow though I think that this is still not eneogh for him.


Agreed, good info FBJ.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 9, 2006)

I'm still searching for production man hour data on the B-17.

I think what could be said here (and I think I'm repeating myself) is the B-24 was built in superior numbers based on automotive production methodology. It was no easier or no harder to build than any of its contemporaries and although one rolled out the door "every hour" it still took 17,357 man hours to build one. The B-24 was built at 5 plants and required several mod centers to really complete them. In comparison the B-17 was built in 3 locations (and still probably had mod center activity after the aircraft rolled). In essence the "ease of manufacturing argument" is a mute point however I would love to see 1944 production man-hour figures on the Lancaster and B-17 and put this to bed once and for all. Just note - in the text I posted it was noted that a B-29 (larger and more complex than any aircraft we've been discussing) was being built in "under 20,000" by the Boeing Wichita plant by wars end.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 9, 2006)

One an hour is a bit different from one every two and a half years. So, in conclusion, the B-24 was no easier to build than the Lancaster. Therefore, syscoms argument to the contrary is null and void.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2006)

as are many of his arguments, including the one about the B-24 being better because it saw service in every theatre, yes it's an advantage, but it doesn't make it better, afterall no one would argue the B-29 was the best heavy bomber of the war, yet it only saw service over the pacific during the war, hey sys, using your logic therefore doesn't that make the B-17 and B-24 better than the B-29??


----------



## plan_D (Jan 9, 2006)

I don't recall the B-24 actively seeing service over Russia. Although, it's possible they flew into Russia on the triangle bombing runs. But I'm pretty sure Lancasters did that too, which would make that point extremely blunt. 

The only place the B-24 considerable service that the Lancaster didn't was in the PTO. But post-war service of the Lancaster proved that it could serve in the weather conditions, and Japanese anti-air defences and interceptors were inferior to those of Germany. So, the combat conditions would be better for the Lancaster rather than worse.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2006)

well in bombing the tirpitz the russians, very reluctantly, let lancs fly from a base in russia, annother, very small, feather in the lanc's cap  but then again the destruction of one of the world's most powerful battleships would be an even bigger feather


----------



## plan_D (Jan 9, 2006)

I consider the fact that the Lancaster proved it could fly in the adverse weather conditions of Russia more of an achievement than destroying the Tirpitz. After all, the Tirpitz was no special target for a Lancaster crew. It was a large target, and plenty of Lancasters were in the sky armed with Tallboy bombs. Basically, it was just like bombing anything else only this target was floating. Did the Tirpitz even take any evasive?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2006)

no, she was always moored, but they did put up VERY heavy smoke screens, actually the final raid that flipper her over wasn't nessisary, a previous raid had caused enough damage to render her unseaworthy, they were essentailly just planning on using her as a floating gun barrage from that point, they weren't planning to put her out to sea again..........


----------



## plan_D (Jan 9, 2006)

It was just like bombing a building then. It's not really a momentous achievement in my book, sorry. If Germany was planning on using it as a shore battery, the final attack definately was needed. Take into account the devestating effect the _Prinz Eugen_ had on advancing Soviet troops around Konigsberg. And that was only a cruiser.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2006)

i wouldn't call her an easy target exactily, the tallboy was an extremely accurate bomb in her own right but if you miss a building, the earthquake effect of the bomb is still likely to bring it down, you miss a ship that's it, you have to get a dead hit...........


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jan 9, 2006)

Heres a good writeup of the sinking http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/tirpitz.html


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2006)

RAF Bomber Command said:


> Both Squadrons lay claim to the fact that it was their bombs that actually sunk the Tirpitz, and the bulkhead has been 'owned' by both squadrons over the years and continued to be the centre of inter-squadron rivalry until 2002



believe me that's aan understatement


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 9, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> as are many of his arguments, including the one about the B-24 being better because it saw service in every theatre, yes it's an advantage, but it doesn't make it better, afterall no one would argue the B-29 was the best heavy bomber of the war, yet it only saw service over the pacific during the war, hey sys, using your logic therefore doesn't that make the B-17 and B-24 better than the B-29??



Not at all. The B29 was a generational leap over the B17/B24/Lanc. There was not one catagory that those three had that was superior to the B29.
The B29 didnt fly in Europe because there was no compelling reason to deploy it in Europe. The long ranges in the PTO dictated long range bombers. The Me262 didnt fly in the PTO but that still makes it the best jet fighter of the war.

The B24 and Lanc were similar. One flew in only one theater of the war. the other flew in all theaters of the war. (hmmm, come to think of it, the Lanc didnt fly in the Aleutions.... I wonder if it would have had coolant leak problems from operating in arctic operations?)


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 9, 2006)

plan_D said:


> One an hour is a bit different from one every two and a half years. So, in conclusion, the B-24 was no easier to build than the Lancaster. Therefore, syscoms argument to the contrary is null and void.



The B24 gets points because it was built in vastly higher numbers than the Lanc. Heavy bombers are systems. There are many facets to what makes a bomber good, and one of them is how many are built.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> plan_D said:
> 
> 
> > One an hour is a bit different from one every two and a half years. So, in conclusion, the B-24 was no easier to build than the Lancaster. Therefore, syscoms argument to the contrary is null and void.
> ...



*NO NO NO NO FOR THE LAST TIME. NUMBERS DOES NOT MAKE AN AIRCRAFT BETTER THAN ONE THAT WAS BUILT IN SMALLER NUMBERS. *
Examples: 

1. The Fw-190 was built in smaller numbers than the Bf-109. Does that make the Bf-109 better than the Fw-190? No the Fw-190 was better.

2. The B-29 was built in smaller numbers than the B-24. Does that make the B-24 better than the B-29. NO!

This argument of yours holds no weight. Give it up NOW!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2006)

i could go outside and build thousands of tiny homes for mice out of cow shit, i could make one ever minute too, does that mean they're any better than real homes made of mud bricks? of course not..............

and you've stated previously that the B-24 was the better bomber because she flew in all theatres, doesn't this make you a hypocrit?



> the Lanc didnt fly in the Aleutions



i wonder if flying over the north pole can be seen as being the same conditions  



> hmmm, come to think of it, the Lanc didnt fly in the Aleutions.... I wonder if it would have had coolant leak problems from operating in arctic operations?)



i'm sorry did you not read up on the lancaster before joining this argument? from yuor lack of knowledge of the Mk.II i'd guess not, but if you had you might've come across a varient called the Mk.10 AR, do you wanna know what the AR stands for? Arctic Reconnaissance, yes, a whole varient dedicated to flying over the arctic  below is a picture of a Mk.10 MP or MR parked up in freezing cold canada..............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2006)

There will be some rebutle, because based off of his arguments the B-24 is better than the B-29 because the B-29 did not fly in all theatres of the war.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2006)

not also the crew access ladder, lancaster crews didn't have to enter the craft through the bomb bay


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 9, 2006)

Did the lanc perform combat missions in the arctic during the WW2 years?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 9, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Did the lanc perform combat missions in the arctic during the WW2 years?



If they operated any of them in Winnipeg during the winter in the post war years, they might of well been in the Artic..


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2006)

no, just the frozen north russia during the war, don't tell me, the fact the lanc flew over the arctic is void because she didn't do it 'til post war  would it help if i said the Mk.10 ARs, the entire varient for flying over the arctic (was there one of them for the B-24?), were modified from wartime airframes?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 9, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> ...the Mk.10 ARs...were modified from wartime airframes...


The most extensive modification to the airframe was that the nose was extended 40 inches to accommodate a nav/weather radar and camera system in the old bomb aimer's position. She also had a UPD search radar installed abaft of the bomb bay. 

Only three AR's were ever converted, and all were from ex-WWII airframes.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2006)

yes i know, but they were still dedicated Artctic Recon. aircraft, i bought them up because syscom said they never flew over the Aleutions, i'm under the impression the arctic's worse


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 9, 2006)

It don't get much colder than that. Pretty harsh too. My dad worked out of CFS Alert off and on, years ago. That's waaaaaaay up north. Pretty damn cold.

By the way, AR actually stood for Area Reconnaissance, not Arctic Reconnaissance. I screw it up all the time too. 
They were made specifically for Arctic surveillance though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2006)

odd, Harry Holmes, one of the world's leading authorities on the lancaster says it's arctic, what's your source?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 9, 2006)

My only sources are my grandfather, my father, and some old fellas who worked at RCAF Greenwood back in the 50's. We spoke about Lancasters just last week while I was up visiting grandad. It's a common mistake though, and even some of the old aircrews called 'em Arctic Recon apparently.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2006)

mmm odd, on that baisis i'd think either was acceptable? perhaps they started out as one and changed to the other later?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 9, 2006)

No, I don't think so. I'm sure it was always Area Reconnaissance. Since they always flew over the Arctic though, it's easy to see how it would become mixed up. I don't think it was exactly considered a big deal or anything. Like I said, even the crews did it.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 9, 2006)

Here's at least one internet source that confirms it:
Just scroll down to the Mk.10AR.

http://acam.ednet.ns.ca/newslet/mar2003/mkx.htm


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 9, 2006)

But did the Lancs perform extensive arctic operations between 1942 and 1945?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 9, 2006)

Not that I know of.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 9, 2006)

No but just because it didn't do it during WW2 doesn't mean it couldn't do it, plus there was no real need to go and do Arctic recon during WW2 as it is all ice and snow. As Lanc the ones that did the recon were converted *WW2 airframes*. Your arguments mean nothing syscom and they are just annoying people now. The Lancaster could do everything the B-24 could do and more, end of story. Both were good bombers easily in the top 5 of the war, but the Lanc is still better than the B-24 in my opinion and hence the 2nd best bomber of WW2 with the B-24 in 4th behind the B-17.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 9, 2006)

Also according to that link I gave, the Mk.10AR in fact carried two pilots, and I'd forgotten about the Mk.10P variant. It also flew extensively up north.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 9, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> No but just because it didn't do it during WW2 doesn't mean it couldn't do it, plus there was no real need to go and do Arctic recon during WW2 as it is all ice and snow. As Lanc the ones that did the recon were converted *WW2 airframes*. Your arguments mean nothing syscom and they are just annoying people now. The Lancaster could do everything the B-24 could do and more, end of story. Both were good bombers easily in the top 5 of the war, but the Lanc is still better than the B-24 in my opinion and hence the 2nd best bomber of WW2 with the B-24 in 4th behind the B-17.



You hate it when I come up with these points dont you. Like I said before, you cant ignore the details.

See, the B24 performed combat missions in the arctic for three years, while the Lanc didnt. Whether the lanc could do it is simple conjecture.

In your opinion the Lanc was better, but it isnt universally shared. And there were roles the Lanc could do that the B24 couldn't do, and there were roles the B24 could do that the Lanc couldnt. 

Its still a tie. And for one thing, its far better than the B17.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 9, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> See, the B24 performed combat missions in the arctic for three years, while the Lanc didnt. Whether the lanc could do it is simple conjecture.


Not so. As you've seen, the Lanc flew Arctic ops for years. Throw in some flak and fighters and there's your combat conditions. What's conjectural about it? That it could operate in the extreme cold? Perform as a bomber? Return from a mission? We know it could do all of these things. There's no doubt of it, so calling it conjecture is pointess really.

You know, I can make conjecture that the sun will rise in the morning, but I'm fairly certain that it will.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 9, 2006)

The Lanc never had a combat mission in the arctic with flak and fighters.

B24 did.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 9, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The Lanc never had a combat mission in the arctic with flak and fighters.
> 
> B24 did.



If you're talking about the Aleutians, the weather was more a problem than fighters and flack. It proves nothing, the Lancaster was operated extensively at night - proves nothing.

If your trying to say the B-24 was a better cold weather aircraft, again you're going no where unless you could show the B-24 had skis installed, something I think the Lancaster didn't.  

BUT - if you really want to examine somthing - look at the post war longivity of both aircraft. The B-24 was replaced rather rapidly in the post war years, the Lancaster remained in service well into the 1950s and that includes the C-87 models.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 9, 2006)

The two pilot cockpit setup would have been safer for continuous operations in those weather conditions.

And who cares what it did after the war. It was designed as a bomber for the WW2 years. Anything it did after the war meant it was inferior to the specialized aircraft that were available.

Its still a tie between the Lanc and the B24


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 9, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The Lanc never had a combat mission in the arctic with flak and fighters.
> 
> B24 did.


So?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 9, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The two pilot cockpit setup would have been safer for continuous operations in those weather conditions.



That I agree


syscom3 said:


> And who cares what it did after the war. It was designed as a bomber for the WW2 years. Anything it did after the war meant it was inferior to the specialized aircraft that were available.
> 
> Its still a tie between the Lanc and the B24



No it means that it was capable of taking up an additional role - case in point, the Lockheed P2 Neptune was supposed to be in service if the war would of went on longer. Instead a basic WW2 concept served 30 years with the US Navy and even longer with other nations.

As much as I like the B-24, the Lancaster was a far better aircraft


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 9, 2006)

In Canada's case, it meant making economical use of a readily adaptable aircraft that was already available in quantity. The thing filled multiple roles nicely enough that we were able to use it for several years after the war. No, it's not because the Canadian government was cheap (unlike today  ), it's because it made good sense all around at the time. We had several Lancasters surplus after the war, and we used as many of them as we needed to fulfill post-war operational requirements. They were modified as required, and they worked well enough in the time that they were used. The AR and P variants were the last ones retired, in the early 60's.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 9, 2006)

The B-24 disappeared overnight - the B-17, Lancaster, B-25 and A(B)-26 soldiered on for years in minor roles.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 9, 2006)

As I recall, the RCAF retired it's last Liberators in 1948. They were used for a few years post-war as transports I think.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 9, 2006)

I think the RCAF had a few doing ASW.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 9, 2006)

Ah yes, you're right. They weren't used long after the war, but they served a purpose for a bit.

(BTW, I like how they call the Argus "present day".  )

http://www.rcaf.com/aircraft/features/liberator/index.php


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 9, 2006)

The B24 and B17 disapeared because the B29 made them obsolete.

A whole new generation of cargo planes meant the B24 wasnt needed for that role.

Maritime patrol was given over to the navy where it rightfully belonged, and a new generation patrol planes that were better at that role were developed and deployed.

The B25 was used after the war for twin engine trainers. The A26 was obsolete after the Korean war, although usefull for COIN warfare for awhile. Neither the B25 or A26 could have been considered important postwar aircraft.

If the UK needed the Lanc for important roles, that was an indication they were hurting for development money and not because the Lanc was such a good aircraft after hostilities ended.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 9, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> If the UK needed the Lanc for important roles, that was an indication they were hurting for development money and not because the Lanc was such a good aircraft after hostilities ended.



The UK didn't use it, Canada did, and no: It wasn't because we were hurting for developement money, it's because the Lanc _was_ good enough for the roles it fulfilled and was available in numbers. We're not stupid. Nowadays we're cheap, I'll grant you, but the Lancaster was enough to see us through those first few post-war years. We made it work, and yes, it _did_ work adequately. No it wasn't the most advanced by 1945 by any stretch, but it was good enough to do the job for a few years to come. Yes, it _was_ such a good aircraft that it could be used for multiple roles.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 9, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The B24 and B17 disapeared because the B29 made them obsolete.



NO the B-24 disappeared!

The B-17 served with the USCG for many years and saw SAW services during Korea. In the Post WW2 years it was one of the first "Hurricane Hunters."

The B-24 made many Chevys!















And don't forget the drones!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 9, 2006)

Kingman Az, 1946


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 9, 2006)

"It is now over half the century since the Lancaster last flew operationally. The last RAF machines where withdrawn in 1956. The last users, Canadian, French Navy and Argentinean air forces retired their last Lancasters in 1964."

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/1998/01/stuff_eng_detail_lancaster.htm


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 9, 2006)

Uh...yeah, like I said. The UK *did* use it too. 



(Tee-hee, nice recovery. They'll never notice.  )


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 9, 2006)

Why did the B-17 and other WW2 bombers hang around for a few years and the B-24 disappear? The B-24 served well but was crude and could be a maintenace nightmare - it also was not as docile in the air as the B-17 and Lancaster.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 9, 2006)

The B24 was designed for one thing, and thats to drop bombs. What happened to it after the war, so what. 

The B17 had the better airframe of the two for strength and maintainability. But the B24 had a better range and payload for what it was supposed to do, and thats drop bombs.

The jet age made everyone one of those piston engined aircraft obsolete.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 9, 2006)

I wonder what happened to all the brit aircraft after the war. Were there depots like Kingman?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 9, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The B24 was designed for one thing, and thats to drop bombs. What happened to it after the war, so what.


While true, it shows the versitality and adaptability of those aircraft from WW2 that stayed around for a few years, the B-17 and Lancaster were among them.



syscom3 said:


> The jet age made everyone one of those piston engined aircraft obsolete.



Amoung the heavy bombers yes, and although it was a common belief that the jet made all WW2 era aircraft obolete, whell hindsight being 20/20, not necessarily true


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 9, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I wonder what happened to all the brit aircraft after the war. Were there depots like Kingman?



I know some were actually flow to Canada and scrapped, but I believe they had their own versions of Kingman.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2006)

Syscom no offense but you have no argument that states that Lanc could not do what a B-24 did in the Aleutions. You supposed arguments have no weight and are pointless. This is getting very old and stupid.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 10, 2006)

Its amazing how I keep finding roles and locations that the B24 performed and the Lanc didnt.

Points for the B24 for proving to be so versatile.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 10, 2006)

> you cant ignore the details



odd, you've become rather good at that, you ceem to enjoy ignoring the radial engined Mk.II amoung other things............



> In your opinion the Lanc was better, but it isnt universally shared



most of the more well informed members here agree with it being the lancaster...........



> See, the B24 performed combat missions in the arctic for three years



and just how many encounters were there with the enemy? and records of this intense flak they flew through?



> The Lanc never had a combat mission in the arctic with flak and fighters.
> 
> B24 did.



again just how many missions? and really that's proved very little, there are lots of things the lancaster did that it would be impossible for the B-24 to do!.............

and just because a plane doesn't do something in combat conditions it doesn't mean it couldn't, the Lancaster's the only bomber to have dropped the grandslam opperationally, does that mean the B-29 couldn't? of course not, post war they tested her with a grandslam and two tallboys........

so, sticking with the grandslam, let's have one of them simulations you love so much! let's simulate the B-24 carrying a grandslam, ummm, where do we put it?? sorry i can't even find anywhere to mount it 



> Anything it did after the war meant it was inferior to the specialized aircraft that were available



no that doesn't automatically mean that at all, primarily because there weren't many specialised aircraft out there! go on, how many perpose built maritime patrol aircraft were designed and built, and entered service up to say, 1950?? very few were developed because converted bombers were more than adiquite, something being old doesn't nessisarily make it obselete...........



> The B24 was designed for one thing, and thats to drop bombs



that's it, i'm never letting you forget you said that! why? because i have proved that the lancaster was better at dropping bombs than the B-24! and i'll prove it again if you wish...............



> The jet age made everyone one of those piston engined aircraft obsolete



yes, in every role EXCEPT heavy bombing, transport and maritime patrol, due to their high fuel consuption and often their unreliability, it would be a while after the war before jets became viable for these roles, look at most of the piston engined planes that served longest after the war, what are they? some are carrier born naval fighters, most are heavier planes!



> I wonder what happened to all the brit aircraft after the war



most were sent to the scrapman..........



> Its amazing how I keep finding roles and locations that the B24 performed and the Lanc didnt



you make it sound like no one else has found out all this before! it's about as amazing as me finding some shit in our slurry pit, it's not amazing at all, please, don't "big yourself up" because i'm 15 years old and my arguments are atleast equal to and mostly superior to yours.........

and the fact is most of the locations the B-24 flew in, the lancaster did too! just post war, and i doubt the weather conditions changed much over the pacific or the arctic between 1939 and 1960 



> Points for the B24 for proving to be so versatile



operating in different theatres is NOT a measure of versatility, a measure of versatility is the roles she performed in and the apdaptations that were made to the planes, in which case i feel the lanc deserves those points which you seem so willing to give out.............

please just give some of your arguments a rest, you haven't exactily proved much, you just keep saying the same stuff over and over again...........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 10, 2006)

Most of this thread has been like beating your head off a wall. The really funny part is though, after all of this going in circles I've seen no evidence whatsoever of the Liberator's versatility over, or superiority over the Lancaster. Almost fifty pages and nadda.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 10, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> Most of this thread has been like beating your head off a wall. The really funny part is though, after all of this going in circles I've seen no evidence whatsoever of the Liberator's versatility over, or superiority over the Lancaster. Almost fifty pages and nadda.



Lets see; ease of production, Longevity, armament, bomb load, maneuverability, I think we left out heating and air conditioning and the softness of the pilot's seat....


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 10, 2006)

I will repeat it for you.

Better defensive firepower
Radial engines that didnt have radiators that could be shot out
Two man cockpit
Better production record
Flew in more theaters

All these offset the Lancs better range and payload, so its still a tie.


----------



## Glider (Jan 10, 2006)

Slower speed = longer in the danger area
Lower altitude = bigger danger to flak
Weak wing 
Inability to carry the most effective bombs around (It is mainly a bomber isn't it?)
Surely your not still claiming you can build one in an hour, I thought even you gave up on that one.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 10, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I will repeat it for you.
> 
> Better defensive firepower
> Radial engines that didnt have radiators that could be shot out
> ...


Oh, no need to repeat yourself again, I saw it all the first dozen times or so. It all stacks up against the post-war multiple roles of the Lancaster, which are _entirely_ relevant to the comparison. It was a highly versatile aircraft. At _least_ as versatile as the B-24. The fact that it was after the war doesn't disqualify it's versatility. She was a superb wartime heavy bomber too, as has been demonstrated over and over...and over, and over...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 10, 2006)

Lancaster = Longevity

Lancaster = More avionics and electronic navigation

The Lancaster had a very advanced communications system for its time; the famous 1155 receiver and 1154 transmitter. These provided radio direction-finding, as well as voice and Morse capabilities. Later Lancasters carried:

- H2S - Ground looking navigation radar system - though it could be homed on by German night fighters' NAXOS receiver and had to be used with discretion.

- Monica - a rearward looking radar to warn of night fighter approaches - a notable disaster, transmitting constant warnings of bombers in the same formation it was ignored by crews and instead served as a homing beacon for suitably equipped German night fighters.

- Fishpond - an add-on to H2S that provided additional (aerial) coverage of the underside of the aircraft to display attacking fighters on the main H2S screen.

- Gee - A receiver for a navigation system of synchronized pulses transmitted from the UK - aircraft calculated their position from the phase shift between pulses. The range of GEE was 3-400 miles.

- Oboe (navigation) - another receiver for two radar stations transmitting from the UK - one determining range and the other the bearing on the range. As the system could only handle one aircraft at a time it was only fitted to Pathfinder aircraft which marked the target for the main force.

Village Inn - A radar-aimed gun turret fitted to some Lancasters in 1944. 

B-24 (either one or two of these)

ASV Mark II radar
Airborne Surface Vessel Detection ten millimeter (ASV-10) radar
Radar Altimeter
LORAN
Magnetinc Adnomally Detectors
Sono Bouys
SIGINT
H2X (American H2S)
I know there were some used in 100 group probably fitted with Mickey equipment as well.

Although the B-24 performed very well as an ASW platform, the Lancaster carried probably the most advanced electronic suite developed by the allies and they did so on a consistent basis.


Better production record? Yes more B-24s were built but all that did was show numbers. At the end of of 1945 6,000 B-24s were in the USAAF, within 11 months they were all gone! We showed the B-24 still took 17,000+ man-hours to build, we showed other bombers close to that in man-hour production time - THE REAL INDICATOR OF MANUFACTURING TIME!!! I give the B-24 credit for the production numbers achieved but the fact the Lancaster carried more bombs, dropped more bombs, carried more electronic equipment, used that equipment CONSISTENTLY through-out the war and remained in service almost 19 years after the war ended shows me it indeed was the better aircraft....


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 10, 2006)

The fact that the Lanc remained in service for 19 years is more an indication that the Brits were desperate for any airframe to use for whatever. So what if the B24 was scrapped within a year of the end of the war? Absolutley no use for it with B29's, C54's, and the USN wanted its own dedicated maritime patrol aircraft.

Some of the electronics were more for night bombing use and wouldnt be of use for daytime use. Oboe was of use in the ETO for its shorter ranges, but of no use in the PTO with its longer ranges.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 10, 2006)

Once again, it wasn't desperation. The Lancaster was well suited for the jobs it performed. Yes, it soon became outdated even in most of it's post-war roles, and I can only comment on it's Canadian service, but it filled the gap quite nicely. Budgetary considerations were important in the Canadian military even in those days, but if the Lanc couldn't have adequately performed in the roles it was assigned it would have been replaced more quickly than it was. The RCAF of old was taken seriously enough in the 50's that if it had have been considered useless, it would have been scrapped much sooner.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 10, 2006)

The fact that the UK was almost bankrupt at the end of the ww2 in fact the Uk had rationing for a number of years after the war would mean that the Lancaster as a excellent airframe with the ability to adapt to many roles made it a natural to continue to labour it was cost effective for the time on much in the same manner as the B52 labours on today


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 10, 2006)

What about the Lincoln and Shackleton?

Avro and subsidaries built 550 Lincolns, which began service in August 1945. The Lans didn't continue in the bomber role because the Lincon was there to take up the slack until the first jet bombers (Canberras, Valiants) arrived.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 10, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The fact that the Lanc remained in service for 19 years is more an indication that the Brits were desperate for any airframe to use for whatever. So what if the B24 was scrapped within a year of the end of the war? Absolutely no use for it with B29's, C54's, and the USN wanted its own dedicated maritime patrol aircraft.



Get ready, here it comes, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!
It was scrapped because it was considered the "dump truck" of the bomber fleet. While serving well and faithfully, it had no role, not even in a secondary capacity by any of the services as other aircraft were favored over it. Shoot, the Navy made drones out of the B-17 while the B-24 was being turned into Studabakers!!! The C-54 was a far superior aircraft if you're talking about a transport and was specifically designed for that purpose, the -24 (or C-87) couldn't come close!!! The only remote use of the B-24 after the war was the Privateer, and the only reason why those were kept was because they already had the surface search radar, MAD equipment and later Julie Jezebel equipment which made if perfect for performing ASW duty against the now growing Soviet submarine fleet, and even those didn't last too long when the P2, and P5 came on the scene...


syscom3 said:


> Some of the electronics were more for night bombing use and wouldn't be of use for daytime use. Oboe was of use in the ETO for its shorter ranges, but of no use in the PTO with its longer ranges.


Wana bet?!? The same radars mentioned were able to "paint" land and surface features, easily used for navigation. Oboe could of (and would of) been used if the Lanc would of saw service in the PTO, especially if the Japanese mainland would of been over run, and in French Indo China as that would of been over run, BUT could of would of should of...

The fact remains a truly great aircraft is judged by its combat record, its ability to achieve its mission, its ability to be adaptable and grow and finally longevity. The fact that the Lanc remained in service for 19 years had nothing to do with the Brits being "desperate" as it was never used in a primary bombardment role in the post war years and actually supplemented the Lincolns, Washingtons and eventually the Canberra and it wasn't until the V bombers came on scene that the Lanc settled into the sunset. No you're dead wrong, longevity is a major factor in achieving aviation greatness (just look at the B-52) it it was the Lancaster that showed it was a superior aircraft by lasting as long as it did.....

My only fault of this aircraft was the lack of a co-pilot, but that was discussed 20 pages ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 10, 2006)

I'm talking about the fact that it was used as an airliner ,asw, test bed for engines ,and many other tasks which lanc has probably elaborated on. it short it was a great and adaptable airframe and I'm given to believe the Shackleton and lincoln were outgrowths of the original Chadwick design


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 10, 2006)

They were indeed.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 11, 2006)

Agreed FBJ, well said.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2006)

Man syscom is giving me a fucking headache with this crap. Mostly because he thinks he is proving something but he is not. And the repeating crap over and over that does not prove anything is just as bad.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2006)




----------



## syscom3 (Jan 11, 2006)

Sorry if the facts interfere with your idea's.

Ive more than proven that its a dead on tie between the two.

Every advantage the Lanc has is offset by an advantage the B24 has.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 11, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Man syscom is giving me a f*cking headache with this crap. Mostly because he thinks he is proving something but he is not. And the repeating crap over and over that does not prove anything is just as bad.


Like I said: Like beating your head off a wall. 
Try some Aspirin.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Every advantage the Lanc has is offset by an advantage the B24 has.



You haven't proven anything, I think it's evident in the vote on the other thread. The Lancaster; longevity-wise, technically, operationally, and adaptability was and is more superior to the B-24. The B-24 gets credit for defensive firepower and logistics. Although the Lancaster lacked a co-pilot, the B-24 was shown to be hazardous with regards to features inherent in its hasty design (its fuel system). I have no doubts about the B-24s performance during the war, but as stated it was a dump truck, served well and quickly retired. There were thousands rapidly scrapped after the war, if they were considered that valuable of an asset they would of quickly found use in other roles (or with many other airforces) and this has nothing to do with the advent of the B-29 or jet aircraft. Face it, it was a dump truck, well used and abused, and quickly disposed of!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 11, 2006)

> I will repeat it for you.
> 
> Better defensive firepower
> Radial engines that didnt have radiators that could be shot out
> ...



 that's the best list of advantages you can come up with, some of those barely count as advantages 



> All these offset the Lancs better range and payload, so its still a tie.



yeah and if that's true the girl of my dreams is about to walk through the door and give me a blowjob 

anywho, your "advantage" of the B-24 having radials is all but offset by the fact the lanc had radials too...........



syscom 3 said:


> The B24 was designed for one thing, and thats to drop bombs



you remember saying that? well i said i've proved this, which i can do again, if i pro the lanc was better than the B-24 in the roles they were designed for will you give up? because the lancaster dropped more tonnage, carried more per sortie and dropped more per aircraft lost, to me that says the lancaster was better at dropping bombs..........

so, let's simulate the B-24 dropping the same tonnage as the lancaster, 710,081 tons! 

so, using my figures the B-24 carried about 2 tons per sortie, that means the B-24 would have to do 355,040 sorties! with the B-24's loss rate at 1.6, in order to have dropped an equal tonnage to the lancaster, 5,681 B-24s would be lost, only 3,433 lancasters were lost, me thinks that the lancaster is better on this evidence? 

So let’s look at the lancaster’s advantages, which are all solid fact 

payload 
manoeuvrability 
cruising speed 
payload to range 
total tonnage 
tonnage per sortie 
tonnage per aircraft lost
range of weapons carried, including the ability to carry bombs larger than 2,000lbs 

I’ve left off versatility because you have yet to conceded on that point, if you ask me the lanc’s advantages far outweigh the B-24’s, and, one final thing, no amount of defensive armourment will save you on a un-escorted daylight bombing raid on germany so don’t say that the B-24 could, because you know as well as I do and as well as everyone on the boards here, the only way you can bomb with a heavy by day is with total air superiority or a roaming escort, losses suffered by the Americans were so bad at one point they were going to knock the daylight bombing on the head, the Lancaster would’ve been just as good with escort


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 11, 2006)

> that's the best list of advantages you can come up with, some of those barely count as advantages



They some are important, some are not. Just like your lists.



> yeah and if that's true the girl of my dreams is about to walk through the door and give me a blowjob



Sorry to hear you cant get a blow job.



> anywho, your "advantage" of the B-24 having radials is all but offset by the fact the lanc had radials too...........



I gave it some thought and since only 300 or so were built out of 7700 total Lancs, the percentages was to low to be meaningfull. Plus if it was a successfull design, then it would have been incorporated in more production lots.




> you remember saying that? well i said i've proved this, which i can do again, if i pro the lanc was better than the B-24 in the roles they were designed for will you give up? because the lancaster dropped more tonnage, carried more per sortie and dropped more per aircraft lost, to me that says the lancaster was better at dropping bombs..........



The B24 was just as versatile as the Lanc. Aside from carrying a more diverse number of bombs (as I said thats a plus for the Lanc), there was nothing that the lanc could do that the B24 couldnt do as well 9or even better in some applications)



> so, let's simulate the B-24 dropping the same tonnage as the lancaster, 710,081 tons! ......................were lost, me thinks that the lancaster is better on this evidence?



Dont play a statistics game, as youre mixing apples and oranges. if the B24 flew at night, the loss's would drop. If the lanc flew during the day, loss;s would increase. As I said before, you have to compare the two in a similar operating enviornment to draw meaningfull conclusions.



> So let’s look at the lancaster’s advantages, which are all solid fact
> 
> payload
> manoeuvrability
> ...



I agree with the first 4, disagree with the next 3 as its playing with statistics, and agree with the final one.



> ....... one final thing, no amount of defensive armourment will save you on a un-escorted daylight bombing raid on germany......



Well said, except you completely forget about operations in the PTO. The B24 was just able to defend itself against Japanese fighters (and I mean just able too). The inferior Lancs defensive firepower and single pilot design meant it was more vulnerable to a loss than the B24. For the sake of argument, I will say the weaker wing of the B24 was offset by the use of liquid cooled engines on the Lanc.



> so don’t say that the B-24 could, because you know as well as I do and as well as everyone on the boards here, the only way you can bomb with a heavy by day is with total air superiority or a roaming escort, losses suffered by the Americans were so bad at one point they were going to knock the daylight bombing on the head, the Lancaster would’ve been just as good with escort



Correct, except for one thing. The heavier defensive firepower of the B24's meant they could at least take some German fighters with them. The .303's were not going to hurt anything. And also see my comment aboput the PTO. WW2 was not confined to Europe.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 11, 2006)

Statistics are what matter though syscom.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> so, let's simulate the B-24 dropping the same tonnage as the lancaster, 710,081 tons!
> 
> so, using my figures the B-24 carried about 2 tons per sortie, that means the B-24 would have to do 355,040 sorties! with the B-24's loss rate at 1.6, in order to have dropped an equal tonnage to the lancaster, 5,681 B-24s would be lost, only 3,433 lancasters were lost, me thinks that the lancaster is better on this evidence?



Now lets look at the data which clearly (in my opinion) shows the Lancs superiority where it matters.

OK now lets say the B-24 flies at night and it's loss rate would decrease (understandably) but by much say to around 1.1 (I think I am being a bit generous) even then it comes out at around 4000 B-24 lost for the same tonnage dropped and that is still a significant number more B-24's than Lancs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2006)




----------



## Gnomey (Jan 11, 2006)




----------



## syscom3 (Jan 11, 2006)

The B24 loss's would be no different than the Lancs loss rate. The Lanc would still have more tonnage of course, but the rates begin to get closer.

Im also curious, does anyone have a weekly or monthly tab of Lanc sorties out of England?


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 11, 2006)

Here is them all by month: http://www.lancaster-archive.com/bc-Stats1.htm it doesn't however specify aircraft type.

How the Lancasters were lost:


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 11, 2006)

Thanks.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2006)

Very Cool Gnomey!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 11, 2006)

> Sorry to hear you cant get a blow job.



you realise that i was saying that if what you said was true, i would get a blowjob, so, my lack of blowjob simply confirms that you're wrong...........

well wadda you know, sex can be used to in an aircraft debate 



> the percentages was to low to be meaningfull



possibly, however it proves that it could be very easily done, remember these aircraft weren't conversions, theyw ere delivered in two production batches within months of the first Mk.Is entering service! they could have been produced just as easily as the Mk.I and would have been if we'd deemed in nessisary, which we didn't, so, are you claiming to be more informed than the entire RAF in WWII?? after all you've stated that the lanc would need radials, the RAF doesn't agree with you .............



> Plus if it was a successfull design, then it would have been incorporated in more production lots



the performance was roughly equal to that of the Mk.I, however the Mk.I was already in service, and more merlins were now available through america, as such it was decided not to continue with the Mk.II in order to get more Mk.I and IIIs into service, i can assure you the Mk.II production wasn't stopped because they weren't good enough...............



> The B24 was just as versatile as the Lanc. Aside from carrying a more diverse number of bombs (as I said thats a plus for the Lanc), there was nothing that the lanc could do that the B24 couldnt do as well 9or even better in some applications)



 dude, re-read what i said to make you reply like that, you'll find i wasn't even talking about versatility, i was talking about their roles as bombers 



> Dont play a statistics game



everything we're doing revolves around statistics, what else can we use 



> as youre mixing apples and oranges



no, we're comparing one WWII heavy Bomber to annother, yeah, one flew primarily by day, the other primarily by night, we're still comparing one heavy bomber to annother, tell you what, why don't we make the two aircraft exactily the same in every respect, then try and find which was better? then atleast they wouldn't be apples and oranges, but, wait a minute, if we make them the same how do we decide which is better? i fail to see the apples and oranges............



> disagree with the next 3 as its playing with statistics



playing implies i have in some way fiddled the stats, i haven't, i have taken FACTS and used them to prove a point, heck even the loss rates you keep going on about are "playing" with statistics, yet you use them? 

here's annother interesting statistic using the loss rates for the lanc you keep going on about, more specifically how "high" they were............

ok, so, 1,000 B-24s (average loss rate for war 1.6%) and 1,000 lancs (average loss rate 2.2%) are sent on a mission, assuming the average loss rates, 16 B-24s and 22 lancs (6 more) are lost..........

so, let's use annother statistic, the stat that says the B-24 dropped 124 tons per aircraft lost, and the stat that says the lanc dropped 203 tons per aircraft lost..........

so, 16 B-24s lost, that means 1,984 tons would be dropped for that mission

but 22 lancs are lost, meaning 4,466 tons are dropped for that mission, so, for an extra 6 aircraft lost, more than double the tonnage is dropped.........

but, all in all, more lancs would be lost, thats more PLANES lost, what about the men? assuming a crew of 10 on the B-24, that's 160 men lost, but only 154 men were lost on the lancs, so, which was the more worthwhile bomber to send?



> For the sake of argument, I will say the weaker wing of the B24 was offset by the use of liquid cooled engines on the Lanc



does this mean you'll finally stop going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it? atleast i'm trying to make this disscussion remotely interesting for those people reading this and trying to learn something by using stats to give different senario, not just saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again 



> The .303's were not going to hurt anything



the same could be said of the B-24's payload


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2006)




----------



## Gnomey (Jan 11, 2006)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 11, 2006)

> not just saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again



Now THAT is funny


----------

