Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

[syscom3]

I knew that would annoy you

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

so're you giving up the argument yet sys?

 

[syscom3]

Nope, stay tuned for my counter arguments

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i'm not exactily sitting on the edge of my seat you only seem capable of giving the same 2/3 points each time

1) the lanc had no co-pilot

2) she didn't see active service in the pacific

3) she didn't have radials (or atleast you don't seem to think so)

all of these points have been addressed...........

 

[pbfoot]

Did the Lancs the RCAF used post war for maritime patrol have one or two pilots?

 

[syscom3]

They might be the same points, but it needs to be resolved. We cant let "details" get in the way, can we.

First off, the Lanc would need to operate in daylight missions in the PTO. Its defensive weapons, all .303's were not up to the task. the B24 had 10 .50's and that was just barely adequate to defend against the Japanese fighters. Unless the Lanc was modified to have heavier firepower, then it would have taken some heavy loss's. And if I allow you to say the Lanc could easily be modified, then I get to modify the B24 to improve its performance.

The B24 gets points for better defensive firepower compared to the Lanc.

Second, although the Merlins were a reliable engine, it was a liquid cooled engine. It is a fact that liquid cooled engines need a seperate cooling system compared to radials, and this cooling system is vulnerable to being holed by flak or bullets. In Europe, the short ranges flown normally would have given the Lanc the chance to fly back to safety before the engine seizes up completely. Now compare that to the PTO where you would have 1300 mile missions. Could a liquid cooled engine hold up for several hours? Nope. End result is youre flying a large plane minus one engine over ocean and jungle, over a long distance. Your argument about the Lanc being modified to use radial engines belongs in the "would have could have" catagory

The B24 gets points for the engines being less vulnerable to damage.

Third, the one pilot cockpit has its drawbacks for the mission that would be flown. You offer no compelling reason why a single pilot single control setup that the Lanc had was just as reliable or efficent than the US setup. I could just imagine a Lanc, 1300 miles from base with flak damaged engines and control surfaces with a single pilot using a single control column struggling to keep it steady and flying for the seven or eight hours in the air. (I wont even factor in if he also had to contend with bad weather bouncing the plane around). Your hypothesis of bringing along an extra pilot doesnt hold water, cause even if their were five pilots on board, theres only one column.

The B24 gets points for this.

Finally, the B24 did fly in ever theater of the war. The Lanc didnt. Even the USN used the B24 for maritime patrol. Plus, when the Aussies had a chance to form their own heavy bomb group in the PTO, what did they choose, the B24.

The B24 gets bonus points.

So, untill you disprove these little details, Id say the the B24 is still the #2 bomber, but just by a RCH.

 

[Nonskimmer]

Did the Lancs the RCAF used post war for maritime patrol have one or two pilots?

The MR/MP variants had only one pilot. I haven't been able to find anything on the AR (Arctic Reconnaissance) variant though, myself.

 

[plan_D]

"Your argument about the Lanc being modified to use radial engines belongs in the "would have could have" catagory..."

His argument about the Lancaster being modified to use radial engines is certainly not a "would have, could have" - it's solid fact. Did you forget to study the Lancaster before coming into this argument?

Does anyone notice something 'odd' about this Lancaster?

Wing Commander L.Crooks' Lancaster Mk.II

From http://www.rcaf.com

 

[Nonskimmer]

Ah, good ol' RCAF.com.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

The B24 gets points for better defensive firepower compared to the Lanc

that's fair enough, however in reality no ammount of defensive armourment's gonna stop you getting shot down if an attacker knows what he's doing.........

Your argument about the Lanc being modified to use radial engines belongs in the "would have could have" catagory

as pD said, and i have said before but you have obviously overlooked, 300 Mk.II lancasters were produced with Bristol Hercules RADIAL engines and they saw extensive use, if you want more pictures than the one pD posted because it simply baffles you and is obviously some sort of fake, as this could never've happened, i will gladly oblige study up before awarding points

regarding the single pilot i have admitted that a second would be useful.........

Finally, the B24 did fly in ever theater of the war. The Lanc didnt

let's see, where did the lanc fly:-

England
France
Sweeden
Argentina
Egypt
Australia
canada
Bermuda
Numerous other civilain destinations
India
all over africa
you name a british colony in asia, it flew there too
actually, one lanc even flew right around the world
not to mention of course the two lancs that DID FLY OVER THE PACIFIC in order to see if they could, and they could

Even the USN used the B24 for maritime patrol

dude what does that prove when the RAF, RN and RCAF used lancs for maritime patrol too

Plus, when the Aussies had a chance to form their own heavy bomb group in the PTO, what did they choose, the B24.

the aussies had to choose them! there weren't even enough lancs for use in britain let alone her colonies, everyone was screaming out for them!

but, some of you may have noticed that so far i haven't really been arguing the lancs numerous good points, well i realised that too just now so, let's see what we got..........

payload- EASILY the lanc's point, i only have to mention one word, grandslam

Crusing speed (i'm sure most will agree, more important in a bomber than top speed)- well from what i can see on www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org the B-24's cruising speed was 190mph fully loaded, the lanc's was 210 fully loaded and don't get into an argument with me about the lanc's top speed, i'd hate to have to brink out a lanc Mk.VI

payload to range- again warbird's resorces says the -24 could carry a 5,000lb payload 2,200 miles, a lanc could carry a 7,000lb payload 2,530 miles

as you may be able to tell by now i like to see figures when arguing, so let's look at some more!

tonnage dropped per aircraft lost, quite important i think you'll agree, i do however admit that the -24's figures might be wrong, i'm using a source adler posted some time ago

lanc- 710,081 tons dropped for 3,498 lost on ops, i make that 203 (to 0 dp) tons of bombs dropped on the enemy for every one they managed to shoot down

by comparison

B-24- 452,508 tons dropped for 3,626 lost, i make that a meager 124 tons dropped for every aircraft shot down, says something, no?

you may also wish to note the lanc dropped around 50% greater tonnage than the B-24

but what about the average weight dropped per sortie?

lanc- 710,081 tons for 156,308 sorties, i make that (luckily for you) rounded down to 4.5 tons per sortie!

B-24- 452,508 tons for 226,775 sorties, luckily for you, rounds up to an incdredible.........2 tons per sortie! i don't even have to trouble my calculator to figure out that's less than half the lanc's tonnage per sortie!

but then what about the lanc's family? a good indication of how good a plane is surely lies in what planes they give birth to as it were, well the lanc's family were serving into the 1980's, well into the jet age!

but what about versatility? you just have to take annother look at the list of lancaster marks and some of the roles they performed to see the lanc walks away with this one!

care to carry on sys?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The only negative I could give the Lanc is the lack of a co-pilot for all the reasons previously stated - aside from that I think it it was a better over-all bomber...

Oh I do remember reading that the B-24 was chosen by many commonwealth nations was because of the unavailability of the Lancaster for export during the war years

 

[Nonskimmer]

We built 'em.
No, but we flew a few Liberators too.

 

[syscom3]

I agree that the Lanc was superior in range and payload. But that came at the cost (for the PTO) of a far higher potential loss rate. As Ive said before, if "modified" lancs were available for the PTO, they would have had a field day inflicting damage on the japanese.

I also noticed one thing about the statistics you quoted......... the Lanc had a zero loss rate in the SW pacific. Thats incredible. Could it be because it didnt fly in that area? By the way, if the B17's and B24's flew their missions at night, their loss rate would go way down too. Now lets see the statistics of a Lanc flying a daylight mission deep into Germany in early 1944.

Regarding the radial engine lancs..... I misread the production number, I thought it said 300 planned, not built. Even so, if they were built, why didnt they deploy them into the PTO where they could have had an impact (and I consider the CBI theater as part of the PTO).

End result is the Lancs performance in the SW Pacific is still theoretical, while the B24 performance is fact.

The B24 is still the 2nd best.

 

[cheddar cheese]

Im pretty sure those figures lanc posted include day bombing over Germany...

And whats this? A huge contradiction?

By the way, if the B17's and B24's flew their missions at night, their loss rate would go way down too.

End result is the Lancs performance in the SW Pacific is still theoretical, while the B24 performance is fact

Oh dear, looks like the B-24's performance at night over Europe is theoretical, whilst the Lancs is fact.

Who says the lancs would fly at day in the Pacific too, the RAF's policy was predominantly night bombing, and the Lancaster was a night bomber. I dont see why they'd suddenly change it.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

I also noticed one thing about the statistics you quoted......... the Lanc had a zero loss rate in the SW pacific

at no point did i say this, re-read what i posted, and stop putting words into my mouth............

Could it be because it didnt fly in that area?

i can assure you they did, look at the list of nations they served with, and that's not even taking into account the destinations she just flew to.........

By the way, if the B17's and B24's flew their missions at night, their loss rate would go way down too

for someone who so obviously hates people suggest theoretical performance, you seem to do it rather allot

why didnt they deploy them into the PTO where they could have had an impact (and I consider the CBI theater as part of the PTO).

because there weren't even enough lancs for Europe! squadrons were crying out for them, there weren't any spare.........

and are you seriously going to ignore all the stats i posted up there? they're FACT, not only that it took me a long time to put that together, it's rude to just ignore it

incase you didn't see them i'll just give you a summary

payload- lanc wins

payload to range- lanc wins

versatility- lanc wins by a long long way

cruising speed- lanc wins

top speed- B-24 wins by 8mph, unless i bring in the lanc Mk.VI, in which case the B-24 looses by over 50mph

tonnage dropped per sortie- lanc wins with more than twice that of the B-24

Total tonnage- lanc wins, around 50% greater tonnage

tonnage dropped per aircraft lost- lanc wins by a considderable margin

size of family/no. of marks- lanc wins

manouverability- lanc wins

end result is the lanc is statistically superior, by a long way, to the B-24, fact anyone else care to enter the argument?

 

[syscom3]

Im pretty sure those figures lanc posted include day bombing over Germany...

If he has the figures for night vs daylight, then Id like to see them. In fact, Id like to see how many deep penetration missions during daylight the Lancs did.

And whats this? A huge contradiction?

By the way, if the B17's and B24's flew their missions at night, their loss rate would go way down too.
End result is the Lancs performance in the SW Pacific is still theoretical, while the B24 performance is fact

Oh dear, looks like the B-24's performance at night over Europe is theoretical, whilst the Lancs is fact.

There were some B17 and B24 squadrons that performed night missions. There is no evidence that the bombers would be any less effective than the Lanc if they had been totally dedicated to night missions. At nighttime, navigation is what counts. All allied navigators were capable.

Who says the lancs would fly at day in the Pacific too, the RAF's policy was predominantly night bombing, and the Lancaster was a night bomber. I dont see why they'd suddenly change it.

The B24's in the PTO flew both day and night missions. If the Lanc is a totally dedicated nighttime bomber, then it loses points for being less versatile.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

There is no evidence that the bombers would be any less effective than the Lanc if they had been totally dedicated to night missions

in exactily the same way there is no evidence as to the lanc's "ineffectiveness" in the PTO

At nighttime, navigation is what counts. All allied navigators were capable

fact is, yank navigators had much less experience at night, where it's allot different to the day, plus the british had allot of electronic aids.........

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and i'm still baffled as to how you keep missing the stats i post

 

[DaveB.inVa]

I personally think both the Lancaster and B-24 have strong and weak points to consider. The Lancaster from what I have read and saw is a very maneuverable aircraft for its size and does pretty good even when loaded.

A B-24 on the other hand is a pig! Ive talked many times with the CAF crews who fly the LB-30 Diamond Lil and they describe her as a handful and thats speaking well of her. If you look at a general overview of the entire B-24 program you can see they were constantly trying to lighten the aircraft and keep the center of gravity in adjustment. Also some of my friends on the B-29 yahoo group have a lot of experience with the whole B-17 B-24 controversy. One individual was a top turret gunner/flight engineer on a B-17 described the B-24 as being overrated. Flying with the 15th AF in the Mediterranian he said they would frequently outpace the B-24s in speed and altitude. He also mentioned one time crossing the Alps with B-24's below them and remembered some B-24's dropping some of their bombload just to clear the Alps.

While the B-24 did do a lot better in the Pacific due to distances involved and being able to fly at lower altitudes that allowed it to carry its maximum bomb load, it still was a handful.

I also think the Lancaster's only real problem was the lack of a second pilot and perhaps crew egress (Ive read they were hard to get out of).

I think it would have been alright in the Pacific, especially toward the end of the war when a great deal of B-29 missions were flown at night for firebombing, this was something the Lancaster was no stranger to.

Also consider that plenty of other liquid cooled aircraft operated in the Pacific and over Japan. The P-40, P-39, P-51, P-38 and Spitfire were all in the Pacific and faired well. I know they are fighters but still they faced Japanese opposition.

Also I have posted this picture before of a modification for Tiger Force Lancasters and also here is a quote from the website I got it from.

" Two Lancaster Is were also tested with 1,200 gallon saddle tanks faired into the cockpit and extending back over the upper turret position. The aircraft were flown to India for trials, and made an appearance in Australia, but the tests were disappointing and both aircraft were scrapped in November 1946."

 

[syscom3]

at no point did i say this, re-read what i posted, and stop putting words into my mouth............

You brought up loss rate statistics, and I was pointing out that the Lanc had no stats in the PTO

i can assure you they did, look at the list of nations they served with, and that's not even taking into account the destinations she just flew to.........

The Lanc did not fly a single combat mission against Japanese targets in the Dutch East Indies, New Guinie, Solomon Islands nor the small atolls in the SW Pacific. I am not aware of it flying many missions in the CBI area either (although the B24 did).

for someone who so obviously hates people suggest theoretical performance, you seem to do it rather allot

You were quoting statistics that were in effect, mixing apples and oranges. Loss rates should be compared to the Lanc flying during the day vs the B24 and the B24 flying at night vs the Lanc.

why didnt they deploy them into the PTO where they could have had an impact (and I consider the CBI theater as part of the PTO).

because there weren't even enough lancs for Europe! squadrons were crying out for them, there weren't any spare.........

Are you saying a squadron or two couldnt have been spared? And how many were being wasted on maritime patrol missions when they should have been on bombing missions.

and are you seriously going to ignore all the stats i posted up there? they're FACT, not only that it took me a long time to put that together, it's rude to just ignore it

I read all of what you post.

payload- lanc wins

agreed

payload to range- lanc wins

agreed

versatility- lanc wins by a long long way

wins, but not by a large margin.

cruising speed- lanc wins

agreed

top speed- B-24 wins by 8mph, unless i bring in the lanc Mk.VI, in which case the B-24 looses by over 50mph

The B29 deployment meant the B24 development was ended, unless you want to compare the Lanc against the B32. US wins here because we made a generational leap with the B29 while you were left with improving an existing design.

tonnage dropped per sortie- lanc wins with more than twice that of the B-24

Agreed

Total tonnage- lanc wins, around 50% greater tonnage

agreed, although you should be mentioning the stats of the bombing accuracy on a specific target rather than an area wide bombing run. Anyone can dump a lot of bombs on a city and hit something.

tonnage dropped per aircraft lost- lanc wins by a considderable margin

agreed, but see my comment above.

size of family/no. of marks- lanc wins

irrelevant.

manouverability- lanc wins

agreed, but how was the maneuverability with two engines shot out and only one pilot to fly the plane?

end result is the lanc is statistically superior, by a long way, to the B-24, fact anyone else care to enter the argument?

Youre right. Since there are no statistics of the Lancs usage in the PTO, the B24 wins hands down.