the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yea, you love us and you know it! (Just don't get too close)the lancaster kicks *** said:see, that's exactly the kind of American attitude I'm no about
lonestarman63 said:The lanc had range, pay load over both b 17 and b24 . and pay load over the b 29
Yet i think if they flew the lanc ,in the day light the lanc , would have been shot down in far greater numbers because of the fact that it did not have enough guns .
The b 24 was built almost twice as much as the b 17 , it did have better speed range and pay load , yet it was shot down a lot more than the b 17 so the above fact about range speed payload means good on paper ,
The b 17 had half the sorties of the b 24 and twice the tons on target per ,mission so much for speed payload and range .
The b 17 also shot down more fighters than any other type bomber or fighter so in my thinking the b 17 was the better of the three
The B-24 dropped more tonnage on Axis Europe than any other heavy bomber in the Allied or Soviet arsenal.
lonestarman63 said:not total
the lancaster kicks *** said:it's my understanding that the B-29 was only ever planned to carry two grandslams but it was never actually tried?