B-17, B-24, or Lancaster
- Thread starter elmilitaro
- Start date
Hop said:
We are looking at this differently here. 1 B-29 could do the job of more more than 4 of those B-24s so yes it was more efficient. Wouldn't you want to have the bomber with the most capability and the best chances of coming home alive. In the end the B-29 would have dropped more tonnage and accomplished the job better.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
syscom3 said:
that was never in doubt, nor is the fact that the lanc is the best of the lanc/B-24/B-17 trio
however could one B-29 do the job of 4 lancs over Europe? of course not, however there would be large formations of either craft, whichever way you look at it, lancs or B-29s the plant will get destroyed does it matter what by?
1 B-29 was more capable than atleast 2 to 3 Lancasters. We are not talking about just tonnage carried, we are talking overall capability. The B-29 was years ahead of the Lancaster.
To do the same job as the Lancaster you would need only maybe 2/3 of B-29s.
To do the same job as the Lancaster you would need only maybe 2/3 of B-29s.
From an economic point of view, the Lancaster was a more efficient aircraft than the B-29. Hop mentioned that four Lancasters could be deployed for one B-29, this means the B-29 had to be able to deliver the same tonnage as four Lancasters. Or a formation of B-29s had to deliver the same tonnage as a formation four times as large made up of Lancasters to be as efficient.
On an attack of one oil station, the RAF just had to send Lancasters with 'blockbusters' and 1,000 lbs GP bombs. Which the Lancasters could all carry. There is no need for the USAAF on the raid.
On an attack of one oil station, the RAF just had to send Lancasters with 'blockbusters' and 1,000 lbs GP bombs. Which the Lancasters could all carry. There is no need for the USAAF on the raid.
Certainly against Japan, but I don't think there would be much difference against Germany.
The B-29 had a higher ceiling, but experience showed they had to bomb from much lower altitudes for any accuracy.
The Lancaster carried an average load of just over 10,000 lbs in Europe. The B-29 might better that by a little, but not a huge amount (and will burn more fuel doing so).
The better defences of the B-29 will make little difference at night.
In all, the B-29 isn't going to be a huge advance over the Lancaster in Europe, because its two biggest advantages, range and ceiling, are not really applicable in Europe.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
it also depends how should be used, obviously by day the B-29's the obvios choice, at night there's not much to call it due to the fact the lanc was designed for that enviroment, had better electronic equiptment and the armament would suffer just as much as the lanc's as spotting the enemy is the hardest part of defending yourself at night, i know the B-29 was used in the pacific at night but over Europe they'd proberly still want to use huge close formations! which the RAF could've told them aint gonna work.......
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Lanc, the B29 had all the offensive and defensive avionics systems that were state of the art at the time. There is nothing the Lanc had the the B29 didnt have.
It was the culmination in all the experience the allies had in strategic bombing.
By the way, the B29 could carry any bomb the Lanc had. Maybe even more. The -29's payload capacity was huge on shorter range missions.
It was the culmination in all the experience the allies had in strategic bombing.
By the way, the B29 could carry any bomb the Lanc had. Maybe even more. The -29's payload capacity was huge on shorter range missions.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
we're not debating the payload abilities of one lanc compared to one B-29 but one B-29 against 4 lancs.........
and you cannot seriously claim the B-29 was fitted with the same ability to fight at night as the lanc! you claim she was state of the art what navigation systems did she have? other than it being centrally controlled what about the B-29's defensive guns allowed it to be that successful at night? could the cameras used work as well by night? what formations would be used at night? what about defensive manouvers? you cannot simply rely on guns by night, most of the time night fighters would break off their attack if they knew the rear gunner had spotted them and move on to annother target, you can forget the collective security idea of the other aircraft's guns defending you by night you're on your own, what was it made the B-29 able to fight at night? the B-29 may've been the culmination of the USAAF's daylight bombing during the war, the late war lancaster was the culmination of all the RAF's night bombing and we'd been bombing by night when you guys were still on the fence, i'd say there's plenty the lanc had the B-29 didn't.........
i wanna get this straight i'm not arguing about the lanc being better than the B-29, i know the B-29 was the best strategic bomber of the war, however i will argue that the lanc was better at night and was the best over Europe.........
and you cannot seriously claim the B-29 was fitted with the same ability to fight at night as the lanc! you claim she was state of the art what navigation systems did she have? other than it being centrally controlled what about the B-29's defensive guns allowed it to be that successful at night? could the cameras used work as well by night? what formations would be used at night? what about defensive manouvers? you cannot simply rely on guns by night, most of the time night fighters would break off their attack if they knew the rear gunner had spotted them and move on to annother target, you can forget the collective security idea of the other aircraft's guns defending you by night you're on your own, what was it made the B-29 able to fight at night? the B-29 may've been the culmination of the USAAF's daylight bombing during the war, the late war lancaster was the culmination of all the RAF's night bombing and we'd been bombing by night when you guys were still on the fence, i'd say there's plenty the lanc had the B-29 didn't.........
i wanna get this straight i'm not arguing about the lanc being better than the B-29, i know the B-29 was the best strategic bomber of the war, however i will argue that the lanc was better at night and was the best over Europe.........
I disagree Lanc and Hop. The B-29 could carry quite a bit more payload over the same range the Lanc could. Not just a little like Hop seems to suggest.
Lanc as for the Electronics. The B-29s electronics, navigation, bomb aiming, and avionics were the most superior and advnaced to see service in WW2. You have to remember look at when the B-29 was designed and built and look at when the Lancaster was?
As for the economical role. Using less aircraft to do the same job is more economical than using more aircraft to do the same job. Less B-29 could do the same job as the Lancaster, B-17, and B-24. Simple as that.
You put 4 crews up you are risking 4 crews. You put 1 crew up you are risking 1 crew...
Lanc as for the Electronics. The B-29s electronics, navigation, bomb aiming, and avionics were the most superior and advnaced to see service in WW2. You have to remember look at when the B-29 was designed and built and look at when the Lancaster was?
As for the economical role. Using less aircraft to do the same job is more economical than using more aircraft to do the same job. Less B-29 could do the same job as the Lancaster, B-17, and B-24. Simple as that.
You put 4 crews up you are risking 4 crews. You put 1 crew up you are risking 1 crew...
the lancaster kicks *** said:
Ummm how about this for you:
It was designed as a high-altitude daytime bomber, but flew more low-altitude nighttime incendiary bombing missions. It was the primary aircraft in the U.S. firebombing campaign against Japan in the final months of World War II,
B-29 Superfortress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
i'm well aware of her night bombing missions, but over Europe it would be very different when they actually go up against proper night opposition...........
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Firebombing at night was extremely treacherous and dangerous, not only from their enemy but from the raging updrafts created by the fires and believe in some situations the B-29s were as low as 6,000 feet. The they had to fly back hundreds of miles over the Pacific to return to their bases fighting the jet stream and tropical weather conditions.the lancaster kicks *** said:
I don't know, If I'd had a choice I think i might consider taking the German flak!
And with the choice I would take the B-29 over Germany as well, day and night.
The technology to operate those gun systems at night was available to the US by 1944.
The technology to operate those gun systems at night was available to the US by 1944.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
i still believe the lanc was more capable by night, not only does she have a greater record by night but what navigational aids did the B-29 carry? what radars? could she be fitted with more radars? what did she have to counter night defenses? what formations would they have flown? what, other than guns, could she use to shake off a defending fighter? did the yanks have any real dedicated support groups for night time operations? any night fighters for support? the lanc had all of these.........
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yes, all the above and then some....the lancaster kicks *** said:
"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."
"Other equipment included a liaison set, radio compass, marker beacon, glide path receiver, localizer receiver, IFF (identification friend or foe) transformer, emergency rescue transmitter, blind bombing radar (on many aircraft), radio countermeasures, and static dischargers"
And she was fitted with more stuff during the Korean War...
And the B-29s firebombing Japan flew low in standard formation, and only carried a tail gunner. They had no night fighters to escort them so they were on their own, at the same time the Japanese had little to counter the raids in terms of radar equipped night fighters.
The raids were well over 1,500 miles, most of that distance over the Pacific.
Bottom line the B-29 was way more advanced than the Lancaster in all areas including avionics and electronic equipment. Although the Lanc did her share over Europe, the -29 was just as effective at night while flying twice the distances that the Lanc had to fly to bomb Germany.
Good post FBJ. I was looking for that material as well. Pretty much sums it up right there.
Ofcourse Lanc will be as stubborn about the Lancaster as syscom is about the B-24.
Ofcourse Lanc will be as stubborn about the Lancaster as syscom is about the B-24.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
would you expect anything less 
how successful was this equiptment? because the fact remains the lancaster still has the better record by night, she had been developed for the role over a number of years and was the sum of everthing they'd learnt about bombing at night, all eqiptment was tried and tested against one hell of an enemy, we had tactics and experience, how would close formations have worked against an efficient deadly enemy, not just the japs, they wouldn't have, and just think of the form up! over the pacific you could formate and climb on the way, in Europe you'd need to form up over the north sea not only would this take a lot of time but would give jerry a lot of warning, this electronics equiptment, once jerry got his hands on it and developed a countering system could the B-29 be updated accordingly? the way the electronics war was you'd constantly need to change and adjust
how successful was this equiptment? because the fact remains the lancaster still has the better record by night, she had been developed for the role over a number of years and was the sum of everthing they'd learnt about bombing at night, all eqiptment was tried and tested against one hell of an enemy, we had tactics and experience, how would close formations have worked against an efficient deadly enemy, not just the japs, they wouldn't have, and just think of the form up! over the pacific you could formate and climb on the way, in Europe you'd need to form up over the north sea not only would this take a lot of time but would give jerry a lot of warning, this electronics equiptment, once jerry got his hands on it and developed a countering system could the B-29 be updated accordingly? the way the electronics war was you'd constantly need to change and adjust
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The Lancaster was used more at night and had the record to prove it, no doubting that. The -29 whilst not sporting the track record of the Lanc at night was still the superior aircraft, night or day...
To say "just form up over the Pacific" is easier said than done. Over the ocean on night with little or no moon you have no horizon and would basically do any form up blind and on instruments. Then to cross 1500 miles with little or no ground references, and to fight the jet stream (something that wasn't a problem in Europe) and other weather made the job to get there treacherous in it self. To even try to compare the two night bombings techniques are like comparing apples and oranges because there were different dangers in each theater of operation. Over Germany you had more accurate flak and night fighters, over Japan you had some fighters where a percentage would ram you on purpose (Kamikazes) but still not as effective. The biggest danger for B-29 crews was the elements and the shark infested waters of the Pacific.
Bottom line is the B-29 was superior aircraft no matter how you mix it....
To say "just form up over the Pacific" is easier said than done. Over the ocean on night with little or no moon you have no horizon and would basically do any form up blind and on instruments. Then to cross 1500 miles with little or no ground references, and to fight the jet stream (something that wasn't a problem in Europe) and other weather made the job to get there treacherous in it self. To even try to compare the two night bombings techniques are like comparing apples and oranges because there were different dangers in each theater of operation. Over Germany you had more accurate flak and night fighters, over Japan you had some fighters where a percentage would ram you on purpose (Kamikazes) but still not as effective. The biggest danger for B-29 crews was the elements and the shark infested waters of the Pacific.
Bottom line is the B-29 was superior aircraft no matter how you mix it....
Sal Monella
Airman 1st Class
How can anyone argue that the Lancaster was better than the B-29 in any role? The fact that the Lancaster had a better track record in night bombing is a little misleading.
For example, the Hellcat had a better track record than the Corsair as a carrier capable fighter. No one in their right mind would argue that the Hellcat was a better carrier fighter than the Corsair though.
For example, the Hellcat had a better track record than the Corsair as a carrier capable fighter. No one in their right mind would argue that the Hellcat was a better carrier fighter than the Corsair though.
