Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

the lancaster kicks ass · Dec 21, 2005

so, essentailly we've gone through this entire discussion ans arrived where we started, with no real perpose

and remember FIDO served a dual perpose, firstly it could be seen from miles away, but it's main job was to give off incredible heat, this heat would then cause the fog to disperse, it wasn't just a "visual sighting system" it was to get rid off fog and if you like, controll the weather...........

FLYBOYJ · Dec 21, 2005

the lancaster kicks ass said:
so, essentailly we've gone through this entire discussion ans arrived where we started, with no real perpose

I guess you're right! maybe just an agreement that a second pilot on the Lanc might of enhanced its effectiveness. I believe it would of given it an over-all loss rate way better than the -17 and -24 under all conditions.

the lancaster kicks ass said:
and remember FIDO served a dual perpose, firstly it could be seen from miles away, but it's main job was to give off incredible heat, this heat would then cause the fog to disperse, it wasn't just a "visual sighting system" it was to get rid off fog and if you like, controll the weather...........

Very true - but being seen "miles away" I think is an exaggeration if we're talking really bad weather, I've flown over huge forest fires and the 50 foot flames, 2 or 3 miles wide generated by the fire could not be seen within the smoke they created, but FIDO did actually burn off the fog with limited effectiveness.

syscom3 · Dec 21, 2005

Lets not forget that in the PTO, there were no radio nav aids (at least in 42, 43 and 44).

Having a 2nd pilot for aircraft operation in bad weather was paramount. For those who have never been in the tropics for any length of time, its hard to understand just how quickly weather can change with thunder cells forming withing minutes. Considering the turbulence that the aircraft had to fly through, and the effort two pilots would have to do to control the plane, I think it is further evidence that the lanc could not have maintained effective bomber ops in the PTO.

the lancaster kicks ass · Dec 21, 2005

there were no nav aids because the americans didn't use them, if the RAF had deemed them nessisairy out there then we would've used our own out there, and i fail to see what the lack of nav aids has to do with a single pilot?

and, give us some credit, the British built the largest empire the world's ever seen, we ruled the seas for cenuries and the navy and merchant ships traveled around the west pacific for years, we know about the weather out there and lancs served in asia very successfully, at the moment your entire argument seems to be based on the fact that the lanc didn't see service in the PTO whereas the B-17 and -24 did?? does this also mean that the Me-262, Ta-152 and La-7 weren't some of the best fighters of the war?? they didn't see serivce in the PTO?? whereas obviously the Buffalo is one of the best fighters of the war, she saw service over Europe and the PTO!!

FLYBOYJ · Dec 21, 2005

the lancaster kicks ass said:
there were no nav aids because the americans didn't use them, if the RAF had deemed them nessisairy out there then we would've used our own out there, and i fail to see what the lack of nav aids has to do with a single pilot?

Ah! There were! AM radio stations! There were also specific DF stations that were used for navigation as well as approach markers. Simple instrument approaches were derived based on the locations of these radio stations - to do this type of flying in a 4 engined aircraft is difficult to say the least, 2 pilots make it that much easier as during the process there is a descent rate that must be maintained while flying the aircraft, timing of the descent, monitoring of airspeed, reading a chart, and keeping the DF needle on the desired course, a lot harder than it sounds, compound that with a cross winds or damage to the aircraft it goes from difficult to insanely difficult, and that's just short of impossible, but it was accomplished by many but also caused the death of many....

Another reason for 2 pilots - vertigo. Very common when in the soup. It's real easy to get disorientated when instrument flying, I believe this is probably the main reason for non-combat Lancaster losses...

the lancaster kicks ass said:
and, give us some credit, the British built the largest empire the world's ever seen, we ruled the seas for cenuries and the navy and merchant ships traveled around the west pacific for years, we know about the weather out there and lancs served in asia very successfully, at the moment your entire argument seems to be based on the fact that the lanc didn't see service in the PTO whereas the B-17 and -24 did?? does this also mean that the Me-262, Ta-152 and La-7 weren't some of the best fighters of the war?? they didn't see serivce in the PTO?? whereas obviously the Buffalo is one of the best fighters of the war, she saw service over Europe and the PTO!!

Agree 100%

the lancaster kicks ass · Dec 21, 2005

this's kinda confusing for me, i'm having a long "argument" with you FB where we're baisically just agreeing, then sys'll come along and ruin it occassionally

FLYBOYJ · Dec 21, 2005

the lancaster kicks ass said:
this's kinda confusing for me, i'm having a long "argument" with you FB where we're baisically just agreeing, then sys'll come along and ruin it occassionally

Yep

Al least he not saying "it could be simulated with the right software program."

the lancaster kicks ass · Dec 21, 2005

so sys have you given up the argument yet? can we just move onto 3rd?

FLYBOYJ · Dec 21, 2005

So...

1. B-29
2. Lancaster
3. ?

the lancaster kicks ass · Dec 21, 2005

let's not be so quick, sys'll come in a while and say the same thing he keeps on saying..........

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Dec 21, 2005

the lancaster kicks ass said:
and, give us some credit, the British built the largest empire the world's ever seen, we ruled the seas for cenuries and the navy and merchant ships traveled around the west pacific for years, we know about the weather out there

Yes the but the Jet Stream was relativly new at this time.

the lancaster kicks ass said:
and lancs served in asia very successfully, at the moment your entire argument seems to be based on the fact that the lanc didn't see service in the PTO whereas the B-17 and -24 did?? does this also mean that the Me-262, Ta-152 and La-7 weren't some of the best fighters of the war?? they didn't see serivce in the PTO?? whereas obviously the Buffalo is one of the best fighters of the war, she saw service over Europe and the PTO!!

And I am sure he would agree with you because they did not serve in the PTO they are disqualified and also because they are not US made and designed aircraft.

syscom3 · Dec 21, 2005

Simulations show that if Lancs were deployed to the PTO, their efficiency would go down due to pilot fatigue plus intercepting Japanese fighters would inflict a good many loss's on them. Simulations also show that the liquid cooled engines would cause higher operational loss's.

The facts are clear. The Lanc might have been a great bomber for the short range nighttime missions in the ETO, but its use as a long range bomber for day/night missions in the PTO would clearly be substandard.

The B24 is clearly the 2nd best bomber.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Dec 21, 2005

However for sake of moving on as I have been wanting to do. I believe the the 3rd has to go to the B-17 or the B-24. Let the debates begin.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Dec 21, 2005

syscom3 said:
Simulations show that if Lancs were deployed to the PTO, their efficiency would go down due to pilot fatigue plus intercepting Japanese fighters would inflict a good many loss's on them. Simulations also show that the liquid cooled engines would cause higher operational loss's.

And simulations also show that they can not produce the real thing! GIVE UP THE DAMN SIMULATOR CRAP. MICROSOFT FLIGHT SIM AND WHATEVER ELSE YOU ARE "PLAYING", IS NOT FLYING, IT IS "PLAYING".

the lancaster kicks ass · Dec 21, 2005

Simulations also show that the liquid cooled engines would cause higher operational loss's.

so, as i said, if it's such a big deal to you, use the radial engined Mk.II...........

plus intercepting Japanese fighters would inflict a good many loss's on them

i fail to see how this would be different than any other bomber?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Dec 21, 2005

syscom3 said:
The B24 is clearly the 2nd best bomber.

And the reasons being:

1. It was built by the US.
2. Your experience with flying it on sims makes you the accurate source of which on is better.

Nonskimmer · Dec 21, 2005

A result based on a simulation isn't a fact. It might display a likely-hood at best, but it's not a fact.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Dec 21, 2005

Yeap and most people can see that....

FLYBOYJ · Dec 21, 2005

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
syscom3 said:

Simulations show that if Lancs were deployed to the PTO, their efficiency would go down due to pilot fatigue plus intercepting Japanese fighters would inflict a good many loss's on them. Simulations also show that the liquid cooled engines would cause higher operational loss's.

Click to expand...

And simulations also show that they can not produce the real thing! GIVE UP THE DAMN SIMULATOR CRAP. MICROSOFT FLIGHT SIM AND WHATEVER ELSE YOU ARE "PLAYING", IS NOT FLYING, IT IS "PLAYING".

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Dec 21, 2005

Jesus I that just annoys me. I wonder if these people also live there lives through games like "The Sims" because they seem to live by them.

Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

Major General

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Pacific Historian

Major General

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major General

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major General

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Pacific Historian

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Captain

Private Chemtrail Disperser

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads