B-17, B-24, or Lancaster

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i can argue because the lancaster was a purpose build night bomber that was the culmination of all the RAF's experience in night bombing, which we were doing whilst america was still screaming isolation, we had the tactics, weapons, support, experience, knowledge and electronics for night bombing, the B-29 was the culmination of the USAAF's day bombing, and i agree she was the finest bomber of the war, however in the night time role role she was little changed from her day time tole and faced an enemy that made navigation the B-29's biggest problem, what does that say about them? let's not kid ourselves by night the japs weren't a threat, and just how many Kamikazes were out at night?

if navigation is the biggest problem surely this navigation system wasn't up to the job? the night war over europe required lanc crews to be alert from the time they take off, knowing the enemy is 100 miles away and they could get intercepted at any point by experienced night fighters, to help this the lancs carry a range of electronics equiptment not only for navigation but for bombing, countering night fighters and countering ground radars, if they were intercepted they had systems developed for defence, tactics worked out and they often worked, some times they didn't, not only did the B-29s have nothing to counter RADARs leaving them open to interception but i doubt they had the experience to counter night fighters, as the RAF showed you cannot depend on defensive guns and you most cirtainly can't use big formations.........

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Lanc sorry but the B-29 had more sophisticated systems for navigation, bombing, night bombing what ever. Do you think the US took technology that was older than the Lancasters and put it in a new bomber.

Think what you are saying.

Here we go I will do a comparison for you based off of your argument which holds no weight at all.

Lanc Based off of what you just said about the better track record of the Lancaster that means the B-17 had a better track record in day bombing than the Lancaster did. Therefore the B-17 was a better bomber than the Lancaster.

Its true Lanc because I used the same comparison as you did! It has to be true. Has to be!

The Lancaster was a purpose built night bomber. The B-29 was a purpose built day/night bomber that was superior to the Lancaster in all aspects, not matter what your delerious mind thinks and how patriotic you are.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

comparing the records of the B-17 and B-29 is just stupid, the B-17 didn't have the same record as the B-29 by night and was in a completely different league to the B-29, now, all you guys've said so far is that the B-29's so sophisticated and FB's said she had a navigation system, give better information as to exactily what it was the B-29 had that made it so very capable at night, how would she counter night fighters? what formations would she use? how could she avoid detection, and yes, i do think the Americans would put "older" systems in, they wouldn't actually be older but the British has the superior electronics equiptment, give me this kinda of information and i'll considder yeilding

 

[FLYBOYJ]

the B-29 was the culmination of the USAAF's day bombing, and i agree she was the finest bomber of the war, however in the night time role role she was little changed from her day time tole and faced an enemy that made navigation the B-29's biggest problem, what does that say about them? let's not kid ourselves by night the japs weren't a threat, and just how many Kamikazes were out at night?

Japanese night fighters were a threat, but not in great numbers. The B-29 was a culmination of bombing PERIOD! Day or night and eventually all weather.

if navigation is the biggest problem surely this navigation system wasn't up to the job?

It was state of the art for its day, just not fool proof. Dispite things like LF beams and radar, most naviation was sill done by Dead Reconing (The same holds for the RAF).

the night war over europe required lanc crews to be alert from the time they take off, knowing the enemy is 100 miles away and they could get intercepted at any point by experienced night fighters, to help this the lancs carry a range of electronics equiptment not only for navigation but for bombing, countering night fighters and countering ground radars, if they were intercepted they had systems developed for defence, tactics worked out and they often worked, some times they didn't,

And that was the situation of the ETO

not only did the B-29s have nothing to counter RADARs leaving them open to interception but i doubt they had the experience to counter night fighters,

Wrong - look at the specs shown above - B-29s were equipped with jamming devices and chafe.

Bottome line Lanc, there is no argument of the better bomber, day, night, bad bad weather, the B-29 has it hands down - BTW during the Korean War the B-29 was primarily used at night because of the MIG threat. It was the backbone of early SAC after the war and the fact that the RAF used it for a while proves it was probably the best bomber of its day...

 

[Gnomey]

Bottome line Lanc, there is no argument of the better bomber, day, night, bad bad weather, the B-29 has it hands down - BTW during the Korean War the B-29 was primarily used at night because of the MIG threat. It was the backbone of early SAC after the war and the fact that the RAF used it for a while proves it was probably the best bomber of its day...

Agreed Joe, however much I like the Lancaster the B-29 is superior in all areas and capability, I would rather have a squadron of B-29's than one of Lancaster's...

 

[plan_D]

Have you got any information on the B-29s jamming equipment, Joe?

 

[syscom3]

Lanc, dont forget the RAF and 8th AF were using radio navigation transmissions from stations in the UK.

In the PTO, there were none.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

"The crew of the B-29 was typically eleven, comprising pilot, copilot, bombardier, navigator, flight engineer, radio operator, radar operator, central fire control gunner, left side gunner, right side gunner and tail gunner. The first six crewmen were housed in the forward pressurized cabin. The next four were housed in the rear pressurized cabin. The tail gunner was in a separate pressurized compartment in the tail. Later in the war, the crew size was occasionally increased to 13 with the addition of two radar/radio operators to man the radar and electronic countermeasures equipment.

Fuel was carried in fourteen outer-wing, eight inner-wing, and four bomb bay tanks, giving a maximum capacity of 8168 US gallons. An early modification added four tanks in the wing center section, bringing total fuel capacity to 9438 US gallons.

The early models of the B-29 carried the Philco AN/APN-4 Loran (LOng RANge) constant-beam navigation aid. It was replaced by the more sophisticated RCA AN/APN-9 system later in World War II.

The B-29 carried an AN/APQ-13 radar bombing/navigational aid set. This set was developed jointly by the Bell Telephone Laboratories and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Radiation Laboratory. It was manufactured by Western Electric, which was in those days the manufacturing arm of the Bell System. The radar antenna for this unit was housed inside a retractable 30-inch hemispherical radome located between the bomb bays and protruding below the fuselage a couple of feet when extended. Later in the war, the AN/APQ-7 Eagle radar unit was used. The Eagle antenna was mounted in a wing-shaped housing installed underneath the forward section of the fuselage. The unit was also devised by Bell Labs and MIT, and was manufactured by Western Electric."

Here's some other information. It involves the Enola Gay but provides information on some of the other B-29 electronic equipment. I think Dave in VA may have some info on this as well.

Countermeasures Position
Starboard side antenna descriptions

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

comparing the records of the B-17 and B-29 is just stupid, the B-17 didn't have the same record as the B-29 by night and was in a completely different league to the B-29, now, all you guys've said so far is that the B-29's so sophisticated and FB's said she had a navigation system, give better information as to exactily what it was the B-29 had that made it so very capable at night, how would she counter night fighters? what formations would she use? how could she avoid detection, and yes, i do think the Americans would put "older" systems in, they wouldn't actually be older but the British has the superior electronics equiptment, give me this kinda of information and i'll considder yeilding

Im not comparing the B-17 to the B-29. I was comparing the B-17 to the Lancaster in day bombing. With your logic of an arguement the B-17 was a better bomber because it had a better day bombing recored than the Lancaster.

What I am telling you is this. You can not base it off of an aircrafts record. The fact is this no matter how you look at it. The B-29 was a better night bomber than the Lancaster. I am sure FBJ will tell you how much more sophisticated the B-29s equipment was, but you still will not yield because you have tunnel vision....

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i do not but having read FB's information there, whilst very interesting and learning a lot from it, it does still seem to just talk about a set that scans radio frequencies? and essentially the APA-11 to moniter RaDAR transmissions, obviously it does mention other countermeasures but nothing more than literally mentioning them, not mind blowing stuff i mean heck even the lancs and some mossies carried a bombing/navigation radar, if, like pD we could hear a bit more about these other countermeasures and how sucessful they were, and a little more about the tactics use by them at night i'll yeild..........

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Okay how about this. Since you are the only one that does not understand the fact that the B-29 was a better bomber in all aspects and all rolls, you have to prove how they are better than the B-29s avionix. You have to prove to all of us. We dont have to prove anything to you because we know the facts.

 

[syscom3]

I posted some info on the formations the -29's flew on my "All Things B29" thread.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Cool will check it out.

I am interested in Lancs response here...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The APA-11 showed if the aircraft was being picked up on radar, I believe this stuff actually did the "jamming."

"The other pieces of equipment seen above are (from top left to right) an AN/APA-11 pulse analyzer, AN/APA-10 panoramic adapter, and an AN/ARR-7 receiver. The panoramic adapter visually displayed a continuous band of frequencies to the left and right of the frequency actually being listened to on any of the three receivers in this bay of equipment. The pulse analyzer was a specialized instrument that permitted detailed characterization of electronic radar signatures."

Although RAF aircraft carried similar equipment, for the most part it was first generation ECM that was designed for operation in the ETO. The Equipment found on the B-29 was the next step and was for use in any part of the world. Some of this same equipment was used on later aircraft and into the Korean War.

Here's more of WW2 ECM systems....

Surveillance bay

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Good info and thanks for the link.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yeah it was an interesting read (although i still wish you guys would give things names instead of letters and numbers it's easy to get lost!) but yes having read fb's information and links the B-29 certainly did carry a lot of kit, and, whilst her cammo was not as good as the RAF's night cammo (well i wasn't gonna make this all one way) i must now conceed to fb's arguments, the B-29 was the superior night bomber, there, now go enjoy a celebratory bud

 

[FLYBOYJ]

yeah it was an interesting read (although i still wish you guys would give things names instead of letters and numbers it's easy to get lost!) but yes having read fb's information and links the B-29 certainly did carry a lot of kit, and, whilst her cammo was not as good as the RAF's night cammo (well i wasn't gonna make this all one way) i must now conceed to fb's arguments, the B-29 was the superior night bomber, there, now go enjoy a celebratory bud

Good Lanc - and I agree, the Lanc had better night cammo, but I think the B-29 had better nose art, maybe we could debut that.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

if you mean dabate, you're on

see, not only great cammo but great nose art too

sources, all public domain........

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

While that is nice noseart Lanc, nothing beats the good old American pin up girl!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

While that is nice noseart Lanc, nothing beats the good old American pin up girl!

My point! 8)

aereinellastoria