Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

[FLYBOYJ]

yeah but like i said the mossie was used to some extent as a strateigic bomber.........

How? It usually ran low and quick and attacked targets quickly chosen (airfields, ships, trains, things dynamic in nature). Now in a pathfinder or a post raid recon role for the heavies, I would agree.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but she often supported lancs dropping cookies........

 

[FLYBOYJ]

but she often supported lancs dropping cookies........

Do you mean as a pathfinder?

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

the pathfinders didn't really drop cookies, they dropped cookies sometimes in the same role as the lanc, sometimes as a diversion.......

 

[FLYBOYJ]

the pathfinders didn't really drop cookies, they dropped cookies sometimes in the same role as the lanc, sometimes as a diversion.......

But I doubt the were on the deck - but agree in that role definitely strategic.

 

[KraziKanuK]

The Mossies of the LNSF (8 Group) were not a pathfinders. Flying 27,239 missions mostly to Berlin, sometimes 2 in one night, and only had 108 'fail to return'.

 

[syscom3]

....., with overload fuel tanks in the bomb bay (or in the fusilage as were sometimes carried) she could comfortably manage as 3,200 mile round trip with fuel for an emergency, with a payload between 4,000 and 2,000lbs at 20,000ft (the charts only gave the data for 20,000ft), and that includes the fuel used on the climb...........

Thats similar to the figures I saw for the 380th BG raids on Blaikpapin in Aug 1943. They had a 3000 lbs payload with enough spare fuel for a 1 hour reserve.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

fair enough, anything else you'd like to add?

 

[syscom3]

They needed two pilots due the mission being 15 hours long, plus three distinct weather fronts were encountered where both pilots had to be at the controls. In addition, a few of the bombers were intercepted by Japanese fighters and luckily drove them off with their .50 cals.

Simulations show that the Lancs would have had a higher loss rate if they encountered the same conditions.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

what simulations? and many tiger force lancs were fitted with .50cals, and i believe there was a removable plate on the side of the pilot's controll column that allowed the adition of a second set of controlls, if it means that much to you, and do all them figures still mean nothing to you?

 

[KraziKanuK]

Just shows how good Lanc pilots were and how easy it was to fly a Lanc. If the Brits thought the Lanc needed a 2cd pilot, he would have been added.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

They needed two pilots due the mission being 15 hours long, plus three distinct weather fronts were encountered where both pilots had to be at the controls. In addition, a few of the bombers were intercepted by Japanese fighters and luckily drove them off with their .50 cals.

Simulations show that the Lancs would have had a higher loss rate if they encountered the same conditions.

Did your simulations consider the dwindling numbers of Japanese fighters and the inexperience of those remaining pilots? I think if the war would of lasted any longer, any Japanese military aviation would of been confined to the Japanese mainland, and even then numbers an skill levels would of been dismal to say the least...

The Lancaster would of performed well in the PTO...

Just shows how good Lanc pilots were and how easy it was to fly a Lanc. If the Brits thought the Lanc needed a 2cd pilot, he would have been added.

It has nothing to do about being "good." Any American bomber could of been flown with one pilot - it was decided that a 2 man flight crew would handle the workload better and provide a measure of safety, evidently the Air Ministry didn't agree. Although Lancaster pilots performed just as well if not better than their American counterparts, I believe there would of been many more Lancaster crews around today had the Lancaster had a dedicated co-pilot.

 

[syscom3]

Japanese pilot quality throughout 1943 was still pretty good.

"Tiger" force Lancs were in mid 1945 not in 1943. But it didnt matter at that time as the B32's could have been deployed which were probably better than the Lanc

My simulation comment was sure to attract attention

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Japanese pilot quality throughout 1943 was still pretty good.

And that's why FEAFs had up to a 10 to 1 kill ratio against them?!?!

"Tiger" force Lancs were in mid 1945 not in 1943. But it didnt matter at that time as the B32's could have been deployed which were probably better than the Lanc

My simulation comment was sure to attract attention

That I agree...

 

[syscom3]

Japanese records indicate that the FEAF claims in 1942 and 1943 were exagerated to a considerable degree.

Plus, many of the Japanese loss's (that did occur) happened towards the very end of 1943 and early 1944 with the big air battles over eastern New Guinie and Rabaul.

The IJA and IJN had squadrons stationed in the Dutch East Indies well into 1944. Their role was primarily to intercept US and Aussie bombers operating in that region. One thing I noticed in reading about the IJA/IJN pilots is the more experience they had, the higher the probability they would end up staying alive....just like the German pilots.

Of course quite a few ended up being wasted in the Kamikazi's, but that wasnt untill late 1944.

Those Japanese pilots who were left behind in the Dutch East Indies, tended to be experienced. And on the occasion that they could get a fighter in the air, they performed well.

In the book "Morotai", the author related on how he was prevented from going on a solo mission from the PI over to Vietnam (in early 1945), as the IJA forces there were equiped with Ki-84's (I think it was that) and the pilots were good. He was told either he goes in a squadron, or not at all. It ended up a good idea as a group that did go over there that day did lose a few B24's to intercepting fighters. Makes you wonder how the Lanc would have held up?

My whole point to this is, the allied fighters ended up getting many of the verifiable kills against inexperienced pilots. The ones they didnt get were quite experienced. And when they were in the air with a capable fighter, they could be deadly opponants.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Japanese records indicate that the FEAF claims in 1942 and 1943 were exagerated to a considerable degree.

Plus, many of the Japanese loss's (that did occur) happened towards the very end of 1943 and early 1944 with the big air battles over eastern New Guinie and Rabaul.

Show me - if they were so exagerated why did they (the Japanese) loose control over the skies over Rabual, Guadalcanal, and New Guinea which ultimately led them getting kicked out of the Philippines. Even if you split the stats posted in half, the Japanese losses were devastating.

The IJA and IJN had squadrons stationed in the Dutch East Indies well into 1944. Their role was primarily to intercept US and Aussie bombers operating in that region. One thing I noticed in reading about the IJA/IJN pilots is the more experience they had, the higher the probability they would end up staying alive....just like the German pilots.

And look at their scores during that period, the IJA and IJN was nothing more than a nuisance at that point...

Of course quite a few ended up being wasted in the Kamikazi's, but that wasnt untill late 1944.

True but many Kamikazes were drawn from training ranks by then...

Those Japanese pilots who were left behind in the Dutch East Indies, tended to be experienced. And on the occasion that they could get a fighter in the air, they performed well.

Far and few as history played out...

In the book "Morotai", the author related on how he was prevented from going on a solo mission from the PI over to Vietnam (in early 1945), as the IJA forces there were equiped with Ki-84's (I think it was that) and the pilots were good. He was told either he goes in a squadron, or not at all. It ended up a good idea as a group that did go over there that day did lose a few B24's to intercepting fighters. Makes you wonder how the Lanc would have held up?

A few? Look up FEAFs B-24 losses, they were next to nothing when compared to the European theater, mainly becuase the Japanese didn't have the planes to throw up against the bombers....

My wife's grandfather was in the 30th BG 819th BS - I read their history, from 1943 to 1945 you could almost count on two hands their losses to enemy fighters. During that time they bombed their way from Kwajalein to Siapan....

My whole point to this is, the allied fighters ended up getting many of the verifiable kills against inexperienced pilots.

And what happened to the experienced pilots at Midway?

The ones they didnt get were quite experienced. And when they were in the air with a capable fighter, they could be deadly opponants.

Agree, but that holds true anywhere

 

[syscom3]

Show me - if thing were so exagerated why did they (the Japanese) loose control over the skies over Rabual, Guadalcanal, and New Guinea which ultimately led them getting kicked out of the Philippines. Even if you split the stats posted in half, the Japanese losses were devastating.

The Japanese airforce was still in strength well up to the end of 1943. After the start of 1944, then the whole thing fell apart.

And my source book for Japanese Loss's is for the IJN. It has an interesting appendix which compares the loss's of the IJN to that of the USAAF. It was astonishing to see how exagerated the claims for both sides were.

And yes the Japanese loss's were devestating. It was a combination of loss's in the air, lots of loss's on the ground and a breakdown of their logistics needed to keep them flying. But all three of those didnt occur untill late 1943. Remember, we didnt even take Bougainville untill Dec 1943 or The Admiralties untill Feb 1944. Untill those bases were taken, the Japanese air threat was still real.

Far and few as history played out...

Agreed. I didnt mean to say there were a lot of them.

A few? Look up FEAFs B-24 losses, they were next to nothing when compared to the European theater, mainly becuase the Japanese didn't have the planes to throw up against the bombers....

To the allied airplane that was about to be shot down by a Japanese fighter piloted by an experienced pilot, it was a "few" too many.

My wife's grandfather was in the 30th BG 819th BS - I read their history, from 1943 to 1945 you could almost count on two hands their losses to enemy fighters. During that time they bombed their way from Kwajalein to Siapan....

Thanks to the USN, the central pacific was wiped clean of all Japanese airforces. Flyboy, I know you are aware that the PTO covered a good chunk of the planet. There were five distinct area's where the air ops took place. Just because the 30th BG in the central pacific rarely (if ever) came up against a Japanese fighter, doesnt mean the 308th BG in the CBI or the 380th in the Western NG area or the 90th BG over eastern NG didnt come up against them.

And what happened to the experienced pilots at Midway? .

Most of the fighter pilots were in the air when the three carriers were bombed. The torpedo and dive bombers crews took most of those bad loss's

My whole point is on the infrequent occasions when the allied pilots came up against an experienced pilot flying one of the later model fighters, they had their hands full. On plenty of occasions, the bombers took a few loss's. Nothing that would crimp operations, but a loss either way you count it.

My question is if the B24's were just barely able to defend themselves against Japanese fighters, how could a Lanc with inferior defensive firepower do the same?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

My question is if the B24's were just barely able to defend themselves against Japanese fighters, how could a Lanc with inferior defensive firepower do the same?

Barely able to defend themselves?!? That's hogwash! Again look at how many -24 were lost to fighters. It was more dangerous flying over water or through tropical thunderstorms!!

Look at the chart above - the worst loss of heavy bombers in a single month was 24?!? - Over Europe that was a great month!!!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

My simulation comment was sure to attract attention

That is because you playing a Lancaster on Microsoft Flight Simulater does not prove anything, especially when you have invulnerable and difficulty level set to weakling.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Look at the chart above - the worst loss of heavy bombers in a single month was 24?!? - Over Europe that was a great month!!!

sometimes that was a good night!

and sys at the moment all you keep saying is that the japs had

1) a large airforce at the end of 1943

2) some experienced pilots that were very good

in responce to 1) that may be so, but how many of those planes were all in the same area and ready to be sent up on an interception at any point? the entire airforce isn't going to be sent up at the same time........

and for 2) yes, but again these weren't all operating in the same area at the same time, you're unlikely to come up against one of the true greats and how many bombers are they going to be able to shoot down in one sortie?? they'd be lucky to get two and some losses are always going to be expected on most missions

and you go on about the lancs defensive armourment (which on tiger force lancs would include .50cals), atleast the lanc didn't have a davies wing, a few hits and you'd loose most of a wing! no radials can save you if you haven't got a wing for them to go on