Glider
Captain
This is going the way the previous debate went.
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
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
syscom3 said:
I think it would have done OK. The B-24 did have a 2,000lb bomb load at 3,000mi range, which I don't think the Lanc could do. The Lanc was a relatively low altitude bomber still had a good payload and range both of which would have been decreased with the addition of armor around the crew positions and maybe the radiators and an upgrade to .50 M2s. The upgrades would have been fairly simple in the Pacific, and with escort they would have done the job.
wmaxt
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Only drawback for fighter escort in the PTO was the generally long ranges the fighters had to fly in. Not to mention the usually unpredictable weather the fighters had to contend with.
Once you add the heavier .50's and additional armour to the Lanc, its performance begins to degrade.
Plus its liguid cooled engines were more prone to damage as compared to air cooled ones.
Once you add the heavier .50's and additional armour to the Lanc, its performance begins to degrade.
Plus its liguid cooled engines were more prone to damage as compared to air cooled ones.
Glider
Captain
The Lanc could go 2,500 miles with a 7,000lb bomb load I admit to not knowing how far it could carry a 2,000lb bomb load but 3,000 miles doesn't seem unachieveable.
As for defence some had twin 50's in the dorsal position and twin 50's could be fitted in the rear turret complete with its own gun laying radar. Which wold go a long way to making up the gap.
Loss rates were almost exactly the same for the Lancaster as the B24 in Europe by day and by night so any weakness in having a radiator was more than made up for by strength in other areas.
Syscom, you know all this as it was made clear in a previous thread. Why do you ignore this info?
As for defence some had twin 50's in the dorsal position and twin 50's could be fitted in the rear turret complete with its own gun laying radar. Which wold go a long way to making up the gap.
Loss rates were almost exactly the same for the Lancaster as the B24 in Europe by day and by night so any weakness in having a radiator was more than made up for by strength in other areas.
Syscom, you know all this as it was made clear in a previous thread. Why do you ignore this info?
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The B24 went against day fighters that could attack from any position.
The Lanc was against specialized night fighters that essentially could only attack from behind.
As I said in the other thread, if the B24 flew exclusively at night, its loss rate would go down. If the Lanc flew exclusively in the day, its loss rate would go way way up.
The Lanc was against specialized night fighters that essentially could only attack from behind.
As I said in the other thread, if the B24 flew exclusively at night, its loss rate would go down. If the Lanc flew exclusively in the day, its loss rate would go way way up.
markvs said:
Your opinion is respected and valid but you do realize that throughout the world there are many B-17 and B-24s still flying.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And even fewer Lancasters....DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Gemhorse
Senior Airman
Actually Sys, the Lancasters weren't up against 'specialised NF's', unless you refer to the He-219....They were largely up against Germany's best all-rounder, the Ju-88, not so often a Do-217 variant, the failed day-zerstorer, the Me-110 [which did better at night] and the Luftwaffe's day-fighters doing night-shift....
It should be noted that Lancasters did day trips once air superiority was more established, but the only US ones that did nightshift were RAF B-17 B-24's in 100 Group doing countermeasures.....
Also of note, B-29 success over Japan was only really achieved by Curtis LeMay when he adopted RAF Bomber Command tactics [and radar] until it was nuke-time......The firestorms became just like the RAF ones in Germany....!
All in all though, it was cooperative effort and no-other country could compare to US manufacture expertise manpower....it's a shame they didn't just get their first jet-engined bomber up running sooner......
The Lancaster is my pick of Bomber [B-24 2nd]
The B-25 for medium [B-26 2nd]
The Mosquito for light/heavy....[naturally]...They had their own Force...!
It should be noted that Lancasters did day trips once air superiority was more established, but the only US ones that did nightshift were RAF B-17 B-24's in 100 Group doing countermeasures.....
Also of note, B-29 success over Japan was only really achieved by Curtis LeMay when he adopted RAF Bomber Command tactics [and radar] until it was nuke-time......The firestorms became just like the RAF ones in Germany....!
All in all though, it was cooperative effort and no-other country could compare to US manufacture expertise manpower....it's a shame they didn't just get their first jet-engined bomber up running sooner......
The Lancaster is my pick of Bomber [B-24 2nd]
The B-25 for medium [B-26 2nd]
The Mosquito for light/heavy....[naturally]...They had their own Force...!
Glider
Captain
syscom3 said:
I know you keep saying this, but you know that its Bull. Lancasters did fly in daylight and when they did their loss rates were the same as the B24. The evidience was given to you in some detail in the previous thread and you accepted it.
B24's that flew at night also had similar loss ratios to the Lancaster, that was also given to you and you accepted it.
Nightfighters could only attack from the rear in all but the most exceptional situations no matter what the target. The fact that it was a Lancaster or a Dakota made no difference.
They are all good vaild arguments (well most of them except the easier to make point that he allways throws out there and is allways knocked down 
), however there has been no case made to prove that the B-24 and the B-17 were better than the Lancaster.
Heres how I think it should be:
1. B-29
2. Lancaster
3. B-17
4. B-24
5. B-25
), however there has been no case made to prove that the B-24 and the B-17 were better than the Lancaster.Heres how I think it should be:
1. B-29
2. Lancaster
3. B-17
4. B-24
5. B-25
Nonskimmer
Captain
Holy crap, is the Lanc vs. B-24 argument still going on?! 
Yeah it got started back up, mostly when someone made a real biased remark about the Lancaster (guess what it was not Lanc) and then you know who started his biased about the B-24, and now we are back again at making facts that really dont prove anything.
Nonskimmer
Captain
I remember the post praising the Lancaster, I just can't believe that we're back to the free-for-all.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Gemhorse said:
While true, the effectiveness of the B-29 over Japan only came into its own with tactics developed by LeMay - the B-29 was a technological leap over any heavy bomber of WW2, no other contemporary comes close, Lancaster, B-17 or B-24....
It was the best bomber of WW2 hands down...
jhor9
Airman
syscom3 said:
As a B17 pilot, I would rather have B24s along with us on missions. If we were attacked by fighters they never bothered us, they went after the Libs
syscom3
Pacific Historian
jhor9 said:
Figures...
Hot Space
Tech Sergeant
Some US B-17's also flew a night as well, but not often. The underside were sprayed black 
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
I noticed in some diagrams that the 17 and 24 had deicing boots on the wings were they all equiped with this or was it an add on as time went on and what did the Lancs and Halifaxs use for deicing
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
KraziKanuK said:
From a new member...
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/showthread.php?p=155345#post155345
"About 3 feet."
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
I agree with this assessment, the flexibility of the Lanc for specialized bombing missions makes a difference as is the British willingness to experiment. A funny thought - the B-17s and B-24s took the heat off enough to give the Brits/Lancs the ability to do this.
BTW: the B-17 was still in active coastal service as "Dumbo's" in '67, drones into the '60s and as fire bombers into the late 80s.
wmaxt
