the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
are you not going to answer to any of our points at all then or just blantantly ignore them again, forcing me to post them all again??
yes, 10+ .50cals did help the defence of the B-17, however it did not stop them getting shot down in very large numbers and it reduced their payload- allot. Is having so many payload reducing alomost pointless defensive guns really justified??
yes, the B-17 did fly higher than the lanc, this also required a huge form up time over england to get to hight, and still didn't stop them getting intercepted at all, also, how many problems did the B-17 have with flying at altitude?? how many crew men suffered and could not do their job at that hight?? how many times did guns stop working at that hight?? i'm not saying that altitude's a bad thing, i'm just trying to get you to see that it's not everything...........
yes, the B-17 did have a co-pilot, it had allot of other crew too, so whenever a lanc was shot down, we lost 7 men, when a B-17 was shot down, you often lost 10+ no co-pilot can save a plane that's been blown to bits, and lanc pilots often taught their flight engineers how to fly the plane, there are even stories of flight engineers flying their damaged planes all the way back to England............
and yes radials are more damage resistant than inlines, in the B-17's case, they're also less powerfull.........
yes, daylight bombing is inherintley more accurate than night bombing, that DOES NOT mean however that the B-17 was always accurate, and also may i remind you of two points- firstly that when city bombing accuracy is not always nessisairy, and secondly, 617 Sqn, a squadron of lancasters, became the most accurate heavy bomber squadron of the war..........
and i agree with you saying the B-29 was the best bomber of the war, everyone will agree with that, however that is where the similarities in our lists stop.
so, as i see it you have managed to make 5 somewhat weak points in support of the B-17, i've decided that i'll post some of the arguments in favour of the lancaster, because you obviously loved them so much you ignored them
- the lancaster bombed sucessfully by day and night (which you seem to think is the mark of a great bomber)
-the lancaster was faster than the B-17
-the lancaster could carry a significantly higher payload than the B-17
-the lancaster could carry this higher payload considderably further than the B-17
-the lancaster was more manouverable than the B-17
-the lancaster was more versatile than the B-17, as proved by the various roles and bombing missions she performed
-the lancaster remained in service longer than the B-17
-the lancaster was used in more air arms around the world than the B-17
-the lancaster was converted to a very sucessfull long range transport that was used not only as the main british transport in the Berlin airlift but became the personal transport of the prime minister and the King of a large empire, the B-17 however, was not.......
-an evolution of the lancaster wasd used sucessfully as a civilian transport
-the lancaster gave birth to bombers and maritime patrol aircraft that served into the 80's, the B-17 didn't........
-the lancaster bought into service some of the most advanced electronic warfare equiptment around at the time, the B-17 however, did not.......
i wish to point out i'm only comparing the lanc to the B-17 at this moment in time..............
and syscom3, i've only posted some of the arguments there, there's more if you want them, i also wish to say to you that when arguing, it is considdered good practice to reply to ar atleast acknowledge someone else's argument before commencing your own, you do not simply make your own argument like that, it's not an argument if you do..............
yes, 10+ .50cals did help the defence of the B-17, however it did not stop them getting shot down in very large numbers and it reduced their payload- allot. Is having so many payload reducing alomost pointless defensive guns really justified??
yes, the B-17 did fly higher than the lanc, this also required a huge form up time over england to get to hight, and still didn't stop them getting intercepted at all, also, how many problems did the B-17 have with flying at altitude?? how many crew men suffered and could not do their job at that hight?? how many times did guns stop working at that hight?? i'm not saying that altitude's a bad thing, i'm just trying to get you to see that it's not everything...........
yes, the B-17 did have a co-pilot, it had allot of other crew too, so whenever a lanc was shot down, we lost 7 men, when a B-17 was shot down, you often lost 10+ no co-pilot can save a plane that's been blown to bits, and lanc pilots often taught their flight engineers how to fly the plane, there are even stories of flight engineers flying their damaged planes all the way back to England............
and yes radials are more damage resistant than inlines, in the B-17's case, they're also less powerfull.........
yes, daylight bombing is inherintley more accurate than night bombing, that DOES NOT mean however that the B-17 was always accurate, and also may i remind you of two points- firstly that when city bombing accuracy is not always nessisairy, and secondly, 617 Sqn, a squadron of lancasters, became the most accurate heavy bomber squadron of the war..........
and i agree with you saying the B-29 was the best bomber of the war, everyone will agree with that, however that is where the similarities in our lists stop.
so, as i see it you have managed to make 5 somewhat weak points in support of the B-17, i've decided that i'll post some of the arguments in favour of the lancaster, because you obviously loved them so much you ignored them
- the lancaster bombed sucessfully by day and night (which you seem to think is the mark of a great bomber)
-the lancaster was faster than the B-17
-the lancaster could carry a significantly higher payload than the B-17
-the lancaster could carry this higher payload considderably further than the B-17
-the lancaster was more manouverable than the B-17
-the lancaster was more versatile than the B-17, as proved by the various roles and bombing missions she performed
-the lancaster remained in service longer than the B-17
-the lancaster was used in more air arms around the world than the B-17
-the lancaster was converted to a very sucessfull long range transport that was used not only as the main british transport in the Berlin airlift but became the personal transport of the prime minister and the King of a large empire, the B-17 however, was not.......
-an evolution of the lancaster wasd used sucessfully as a civilian transport
-the lancaster gave birth to bombers and maritime patrol aircraft that served into the 80's, the B-17 didn't........
-the lancaster bought into service some of the most advanced electronic warfare equiptment around at the time, the B-17 however, did not.......
i wish to point out i'm only comparing the lanc to the B-17 at this moment in time..............
and syscom3, i've only posted some of the arguments there, there's more if you want them, i also wish to say to you that when arguing, it is considdered good practice to reply to ar atleast acknowledge someone else's argument before commencing your own, you do not simply make your own argument like that, it's not an argument if you do..............
