- Thread starter
- #441
Agreed I dont see why it would not have been decent in the Pacific. There is no reason why you cant put a second pilot if that is your main argument.
Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3
- Thread starter DerAdlerIstGelandet
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
Gnomey said:
While there were serious problems with the Merlin in the early P-51s and the Merlin always had plug fowling problems (at least in the Mustang) It could and did long missions in the PTO.
The lanc could have had a second pilot position and upgraded armamment/armor and been successful in the Pacific. It would have dropped the bomb load as the extra weight did in the B-17 but it could have done the job to. I agree, It would still be the second best bomber (or if you will the best "Heavy Bomber" with the B-29 as the best "Extra Heavy Bomber" ) with the B-17 and B-24 closely following it.
wmaxt
- Thread starter
- #443
Well said there.
Good post wmaxt.
Nonskimmer
Captain
Yes, and you too Gnomey.Gnomey said:
syscom3
Pacific Historian
I agree that if the Lanc had the modifications, it would have easily been the best bomber of the PTO. But it didnt.
Since it never was deployed in the SW Pacific where all the action was, we will really never know. In 1945, the Aussies had the option of forming a heavy bomber group with B24's or Lancs, and they chose the B24's. It was the same in CBI. B24's were used and not Lancs.
Because the B24 fought in every theater we know its performance.
For this reason, I choose the B24 and not the Lanc.
Since it never was deployed in the SW Pacific where all the action was, we will really never know. In 1945, the Aussies had the option of forming a heavy bomber group with B24's or Lancs, and they chose the B24's. It was the same in CBI. B24's were used and not Lancs.
Because the B24 fought in every theater we know its performance.
For this reason, I choose the B24 and not the Lanc.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
you're choosing the B-24 over the lanc as second best? i can see the reasoning for that however i think the acchievements if the lanc, it's versatility (something that, so, far, has been very much overlooked in this disscussion) more than make up for the fact it "only" saw service over Europe..........
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
the lancaster kicks ass said:
Actualy Lanc, the Lancaster's versaltility (large flexible bombay), and the Brits willingness to use it creatively, is what gives it the edge. Beyond that versality, the only thing that sets it apart from the B-17 is mission profile/set-up.
wmaxt
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The operational parameters in the PTO were far different than the ETO.
As I've said, on the long range missions, the Lancs reliance on one pilot and liquid cooled engines was recipie for sub standard performance.
Versatility means nothing if it cant operate effectively in a similar enviornment like the B24 did.
As I've said, on the long range missions, the Lancs reliance on one pilot and liquid cooled engines was recipie for sub standard performance.
Versatility means nothing if it cant operate effectively in a similar enviornment like the B24 did.
Nonskimmer
Captain
You know, I still can't see what the big, big deal is about the liquid cooled Merlins. Sure, they weren't as robust as any radial, but let's not get too foolish about it. If it did become so very bad for them in the Pacific, I'm sure that Hercules powered Lancs could be whipped up for the Pacific Theatre without too much trouble.
Exactly NS, if the Lancs were not performing satifactorly then they would of been modified to improve their performance. If this meant replacing the Merlins with Hercules's so be it, it would have been done. Add the provision for a second pilot and heavier defensive armament and the Lanc is going to do every bit as well as the B-24 and B-17 did in the Pacific if not better that is for sure.Nonskimmer said:
syscom3
Pacific Historian
I have always maintained that a Lanc with two pilots and heavier defensive firepower would have made it a great bomber for the PTO. Equiping it with air cooled radials would have been a bonus.
But the fact remains that it wasnt done, thus we have to look at what models did exist.
The ranges and potential weather conditions in the PTO required two pilots. The long ranges also required heavier defensive firepower as fighter escort was always problematic.
Battle damage to the aircraft was always a possibility and liquid cooled engines had a distinct disadvantage compared to radials, especially when they would have to run for several hours on the return trip back to base.
But the fact remains that it wasnt done, thus we have to look at what models did exist.
The ranges and potential weather conditions in the PTO required two pilots. The long ranges also required heavier defensive firepower as fighter escort was always problematic.
Battle damage to the aircraft was always a possibility and liquid cooled engines had a distinct disadvantage compared to radials, especially when they would have to run for several hours on the return trip back to base.
Nonskimmer
Captain
True enough, but you just said it yourself: It wasn't done. If it had been done, don't you think that the British and Commonwealth air forces could have made modifications accordingly if necessary?
syscom3
Pacific Historian
I have no answer why the modifications were not made. In hindsight, everything is 20/20 vision.
So I am maintaining that given what was available in 1943 and 1944, All the "plus's" that the Lanc had was offset by minus's in the PTO.
You might say that the B24 was average, but at least it was consistantly average in all theaters. (sort of like budweiser beer, hehehehehehe)
So I am maintaining that given what was available in 1943 and 1944, All the "plus's" that the Lanc had was offset by minus's in the PTO.
You might say that the B24 was average, but at least it was consistantly average in all theaters. (sort of like budweiser beer, hehehehehehe)
Nonskimmer
Captain
I wasn't referring to the RAAF specifically. I'm talking about large-scale Commonwealth bomber involvement in the PTO. That includes Great Britain, New Zealand, and Canada as well. It's all strictly hypothetical of course, but if it had become longer term for them in the Pacific Theatre it may well have happened quite easily. I see no reason why it couldn't have been pulled off successfully with the Lancaster.syscom3 said:
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
well why not considder the use of the Mk.II in the PTO if you're gonna get so hung up on the fact it's got liquid cooled engines?? and i fail to see how taking along a second pilot is such a big deal, they even did it over Europe some times, watch, it's this simple
Sqn Ldr.- alright Harris, you've been assigned as my second dickie for tonight's op.
Flt. Lt.- alreet sir, i canne weet (he's scottish
)
see, the modification consists of 2 lines of speech and you have a second pilot!
and if you want to see how she's react to different conditions, look at the countries served in post war, scorchingly hot Australia, freezing cold Canada, France, with, well, the french, sweeden with all the cheese and the mountains, Egypt with all that sand and Argentina with all them harriers flying around on top of that the RAF used them over Africa where they performed without problems, similarly in India and then there's the lancaster's use in civilian use, she was happily flying all around the world! and the merlin's use in adverse weather was further proved in the use of the lancastrain and York..............
Sqn Ldr.- alright Harris, you've been assigned as my second dickie for tonight's op.
Flt. Lt.- alreet sir, i canne weet (he's scottish
)see, the modification consists of 2 lines of speech and you have a second pilot!
and if you want to see how she's react to different conditions, look at the countries served in post war, scorchingly hot Australia, freezing cold Canada, France, with, well, the french
, sweeden with all the cheese and the mountains, Egypt with all that sand and Argentina with all them harriers flying around on top of that the RAF used them over Africa where they performed without problems, similarly in India and then there's the lancaster's use in civilian use, she was happily flying all around the world! and the merlin's use in adverse weather was further proved in the use of the lancastrain and York..............
Pretty much and I for one agree with him.plan_D said:
- Thread starter
- #459
syscom3 said:
2nd best, it still had to compete with the B-29 which was the best all around strategic bomber of WW2.
cheddar cheese
Major General
Sweden? Cheese and Mountains? Dont you mean Switzerland?
- Status
