B-17, B-24, or Lancaster

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The lanc did not serve in the Pacific
Click to expand...

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 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.........
 
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.
 
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..........
 
...further more post war there were plenty of lancs flying long distances all around the world including in the pacific without engine problems,
Click to expand...

Noone was shooting at the Lanc post war.

i think your argument about the lanc's inlines being a dissadvantage is flawed,
Click to expand...

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.

furthermore what exactly do you suggest beats the lanc in the ETO?
Click to expand...

Typo on my part. I meant it to be #1 in the ETO

...and stop bringing the B-32 into the argument? i believe she completed all of 11 missions during the war no?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Compare the Halifax VI to the B-24 then Syscom.

They were flying in the Far East and Pacific before wars end by at least two RAF Squadrons.
 
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............
 
syscom3 said:
B24 of course!
Click to expand...

Based on bomb load and range the Lancaster was the best, B 24 next, and the B 17 way behind.

Henk said:
Maybe, but who had the best defence against fighters. I would rather fly in the B-17 than the other two. The bomb laod of the B-17 was not so bad.

Henk
Click to expand...

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:
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
And there is more to what makes the best bomber than the amount of bombs it can carry.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
How did B-17 and B-24 formations avoid shooting each other?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
5K
Peter Gunn
K
B-25G and B-25H information on spent 75mm cartridges - through hatch or port?
Replies
14
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
N
How does Ural bombers(Ju-89/Do-19) compared to stuff luke B-17 or Lancaster?
Replies
1
Views
898
GregP
Y
Help Identifying Great Uncle's B-17
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
CATCH 22
B-17E in Europe
Replies
17
Views
2K
Big Jake
B
Menu
Log in
Register