FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Nice Stuff Chris and Eric!
B-17, B-24, or Lancaster
- Thread starter elmilitaro
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hot Space
Tech Sergeant
Everytime I see that Ball Turret from the B-17/24 I alway's think it was a left over from Star Wars. It would fit right in with the movie.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
An armed R2D2!!!Hot Space said:
Yeah everytime I have seen it before it was on the aircraft. This is the first uninstalled one that I have seen. I thought it was really neat.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
True, however one must remember there were plans to operate her out there, trials were undertaken and it was proved it could be done and she served out there without any problems post war, and post war she also undertook all of the roles of the B-24, the sole reason she didn't perform these roles during the war was that there were not enough, despite coastal command crying out for halibags and lancs, lancs even moreso, understandably Bomber command got them all, and syscom, the reason more weren't produced was because they weren't contracted to, the Air ministry folt they were doing fine with what they had, as to them stratigic bombing did not exist outside of the ETO........
a bigger explosive charge does more damage than a smaller one... do we need evidence to support that
but anyway, get back to your little tiff about which was the 3rd best bomber, the B-17 or B-24
As for the Lanc did not serve in the Pacific that arguement is hogwash.
The P-38 was not idealy suited for the ETO and was overshadowed by other aircraft in the ETO. Does that make it worse than the P-51D or P-47. No. Hogwash!
So I will reiterate it for syscom:
1. B-29
2. Lancaster (not the B-24!!!)
3.
The P-38 was not idealy suited for the ETO and was overshadowed by other aircraft in the ETO. Does that make it worse than the P-51D or P-47. No. Hogwash!
So I will reiterate it for syscom:
1. B-29
2. Lancaster (not the B-24!!!)
3.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Agree
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
the thing i don't get is why syscom thinks the inlines would be a problem when his much loved inline engined P-38 did so well out there.........
syscom3
Pacific Historian
In the ETO, the Lanc is #1.
In the Pacific, the B24 is #1 (excluding the B32 and B29 of course).
And it is a valid point to make that the Lanc's "expected" performace in the PTO was all theory. The B24 DID fly so we know for a fact what it was capable of in that enviornment. If the B24's were just by the thinnest of margins of being able to handle raids without escort, then the far more weekly armed Lancs would have had a tough time.
Inline engines for fighters cannot be considered as a drawback if the performance is good enough and it could stay out of trouble. For bombers its a drawback simply because of the ranges they needed to fly and the inevitability of damage from flak or fighters. What made the P38 effective with the inlines was its performace margin, extreme range and there were two of them.
In the Pacific, the B24 is #1 (excluding the B32 and B29 of course).
And it is a valid point to make that the Lanc's "expected" performace in the PTO was all theory. The B24 DID fly so we know for a fact what it was capable of in that enviornment. If the B24's were just by the thinnest of margins of being able to handle raids without escort, then the far more weekly armed Lancs would have had a tough time.
Inline engines for fighters cannot be considered as a drawback if the performance is good enough and it could stay out of trouble. For bombers its a drawback simply because of the ranges they needed to fly and the inevitability of damage from flak or fighters. What made the P38 effective with the inlines was its performace margin, extreme range and there were two of them.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
yes and there's 4 inlines on the lanc? surely 4 is better than two? the merlin was proved to be one of the best, most reliable inlines of the war, the lanchad no problems on 3 engines, infact some lancs on 3 engines still have more power than a B-24, further more post war there were plenty of lancs flying long distances all around the world including in the pacific without engine problems, i think your argument about the lanc's inlines being a dissadvantage is flawed, furthermore what exactly do you suggest beats the lanc in the ETO? and stop bringing the B-32 into the argument? i believe she completed all of 11 missions during the war no? hardly worthy of great note, infact it's less noteworthy than the Mk.VI lanc capable of 350 in a straight line with full payload, and that's in 1943..........
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Noone was shooting at the Lanc post war.
liquid cooled engines are always more prone to failure than air cooled engines, simply because liquid cooled needs a radiator and the engine cast for water passages. All of which introduces a failure path.
Typo on my part. I meant it to be #1 in the ETO
I was clarifying my statement to not include the B32 and B29. The B32 was superior to the Lanc, but it didnt matter at that stage since the B29 was already in full production.
Syscom how can you absolutely say the B-24 would have been better in the PTO than the Lancaster when the Lancaster did not serve in the PTO?
Therefore based off of that, all that any of us (including yourself) can go off for comparison is the ETO and the capabilities of the aircraft period.
Therefore the Lancaster beats out the B-24.
Therefore based off of that, all that any of us (including yourself) can go off for comparison is the ETO and the capabilities of the aircraft period.
Therefore the Lancaster beats out the B-24.
Bf109_g
Senior Airman
Hey guys.
I'm going for the Type 464 Provisioning Lancaster, the "Dambuster" model...
I'm going for the Type 464 Provisioning Lancaster, the "Dambuster" model...
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
out of interest why? she could only carry one type of ordinance and didn't have a mid-upper turret? that being said in reality they were little different to normal lancasters because they were normal lancasters, they were modified from normal lancasters and those surviving the raid were returned to their normal configuration and served as bombers for the rest of their lives............
Bf109_g
Senior Airman
Hey Lanc.
Well, the Dambuster Lancasters were one-offs, so that is why I chose them...
Thanx.
James.
Well, the Dambuster Lancasters were one-offs, so that is why I chose them...
Thanx.
James.
Based on bomb load and range the Lancaster was the best, B 24 next, and the B 17 way behind.
Actually the bomb load of the B 17 was abismal compared to the B 24 and Lanchaster. Even with the additional fire power of the later B 17's they still needed fighter escort. Also the B 17 had very limited range compared to the others.
Last edited by a moderator:
And there is more to what makes the best bomber than the amount of bombs it can carry.
Demetrious
Airman 1st Class
- 104
- Aug 22, 2007
Yes, like defensive armament. The Lancaster had eight .303 caliber peashooters, while the B-24 had ten or twelve .50 caliber machine guns. Combined with the radial engines vs. the in-line engines, the B-24 was unarguably more survivable.
However the B-17 was even more survivable, with an unparalleled ability to absorb battle damage and a similar defensive armament. Of course, it had a shorter range and less payload.
You must view heavy bombers on a spectrum, with survivability at one end, and range/payload at the other. The Lancaster is the best at taking a heavy payload the furthest distance, the B-17 is the most capable of surviving in a hostile environment, and the B-24 is right in the middle.
Now if you consider how the equation changes with night-fighting, you can appreciate how well the Lancaster and the American bombers complimented each other. B-17s and 24s during the day and Lancs at night catered nicely to each aircraft's strong suite, and the absence of any one of those aircraft would have left a shortcoming in the Allied heavy bomber lineups.
Loiner
Senior Airman
I think that's a fair assesment Demetrious, the Lanc could carry more but defensive armament was weak with just .303s, but for the night bombing role that was perhaps more sufficient as night-fighters were less of a threat than flak was, whereas the B17 was tougher and much better armed which was a requirement for daytime operations where enemy fighters were inevitable as well as flak. The B24 was arguably better all round than the B17, but was also produced in greater numbers than any other US bomber.
One advantage of the Lancs heavy load carrying capacity was the special raid missions, not just the 'Upkeep' raid on the dams, but the Tall Boys and Grand Slams that were carried on special missions as the only one off weapons that could destroy reinforced 'U' Boat pens and other tough bunkers.
One advantage of the Lancs heavy load carrying capacity was the special raid missions, not just the 'Upkeep' raid on the dams, but the Tall Boys and Grand Slams that were carried on special missions as the only one off weapons that could destroy reinforced 'U' Boat pens and other tough bunkers.
Last edited:
