Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

Well if that is an arguement then put it this way. The Lancaster flew in Europe. The Germans had a larger airforce than the Japanese did and had more experienced pilots than the Japs did.

If you say well that is different because the Lanc flew at night, well the Germans had better nightfighters and better night fighting technology than the Japs did.

 

[syscom3]

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

The US only had a few bomb groups available in the PTO. Plus the number of sorties was far less than the ETO due to the weather and logistics situation. (1942 and 1943). Of course far fewer planes were shot down because far fewer were flying at any given time.

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........

I dont really know how to answer your first comment. Untill 1944, both the Japanese and Allies had to disperse their airforces amongst an extremely large area. If the Japanese at Rabaul could only scramble 70 fighters, that was offset that the USAAF could only send 60 or so B24's.

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

If only a few B24's could be expected to be lost on each mission if intercepted by Japanese fighters, then the Lancs would lose a dozen. Lets face it, .303's are inferior to .50's. And if a solid hit in the wing causes the davis wing to fold up, then I say a solid hit in the cockpit would kill the only pilot on board. And with a radial being hit, at least the pilots didnt have to worry about a coolant leak a thousand miles from base over an unforgiving ocean and jungle.

The fact is the bombers of the PTO had to do a lot of missions unescorted. In fact the 380th BG didnt have any escorts untill a year after they started flying missions. This is important as the B24 had a far better chance flying without fighter cover than the Lanc did.

And your "tiger force" was not even thought of untill 1945, well after the war had been decided. In fact at that time, you probably didnt even need many defensive guns. If you insist that the Lanc should be judged as being the Tiger Force model, I say the B24 gets multiple bonus points for being far easier to build.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well I just added jet engines to my Lancaster and a 2nd pilot, so there mines better and it can beat yours up!

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

And if a solid hit in the wing causes the davis wing to fold up, then I say a solid hit in the cockpit would kill the only pilot on board

a "solid" hit in the cockpit would take out everyone in the cockpit of any plane, including pilots, co-pilots and flight engineers, and if the jap pilots are as good as you say then they would do what most pilots do when attacking 4-engined heavies, go for the wings! that's where the engines and fuel are, that's what a pilot would go for, remember if they go for the fusilage they stand the chance of setting off bombs, which is likely to kill the attacking fighter if he's close enough.............

And with a radial being hit, at least the pilots didnt have to worry about a coolant leak a thousand miles from base over an unforgiving ocean and jungle

not only could the lanc fly long distances happily on 3 engines but remember the Mk.II lancaster we spoke about? some lovely radials there!

The fact is the bombers of the PTO had to do a lot of missions unescorted. In fact the 380th BG didnt have any escorts untill a year after they started flying missions. This is important as the B24 had a far better chance flying without fighter cover than the Lanc did.

lancs had little/no escort over Europe??

If you insist that the Lanc should be judged as being the Tiger Force model, I say the B24 gets multiple bonus points for being far easier to build

now hold on one cotton picking minute, what source are you using for the B-24 being easier to build? do you actually have anything to back that claim up?

and are you aware of the differences between lancasters? judging from your lack of knowledge of the Mk.II i'll guess not, when i refer to Tiger force lancs that's just a term for the lancs prepared to go out to the pacific, they were mostly Mk.Is and Mk.IIIs woth some Mk.VIIs, most planes were operational throughout the war, only very minor modifications were made to the lancs that served over europe for their intended use over the pacific, most of the planes in the tiger force were first built for use over europe then converted for the PTO, very few Mk.I(FE)s were perpose built.............

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and actually you raise a very good point adler, about the lanc being so versatile and having such great load carrying ability she was used as a testbed of choice for numerous piston and jet engines................

 

[syscom3]

Well I just added jet engines to my Lancaster and a 2nd pilot, so there mines better and it can beat yours up!

Simulations show that the B32 was just as effective using piston engines, and your Lanc still wasnt as good as the B29!

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

that simulations thing's getting old now...........

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well I just added jet engines to my Lancaster and a 2nd pilot, so there mines better and it can beat yours up!

Simulations show that the B32 was just as effective using piston engines, and your Lanc still wasnt as good as the B29!

Alright now. What fricken simulations are you talking about? I dont know of any simulations except for your own, which carry absolutly no weight at all, what so ever!

You show me some sources for these simulations or stop bring them up, because you playing at your PC does not hold up.

 

[syscom3]

a "solid" hit in the cockpit would take out everyone in the cockpit of any plane, including pilots, co-pilots and flight engineers, and if the jap pilots are as good as you say then they would do what most pilots do when attacking 4-engined heavies, go for the wings! that's where the engines and fuel are, that's what a pilot would go for, remember if they go for the fusilage they stand the chance of setting off bombs, which is likely to kill the attacking fighter if he's close enough.............

A hit in the cockpit has far more potential of causing problems with a single pilot than two pilots. And bullets when fired tend to have a mind of their own when being fired. Where you aim at is not necessarily where it hits.

not only could the lanc fly long distances happily on 3 engines but remember the Mk.II lancaster we spoke about? some lovely radials there!

Anytime you lose an engine on a big plane its cause for concern. Could it fly on three engines? Sure. For how long? Only fate can determine that. The simple fact here is a liguid cooled engine is more vulnerable to damage than an air cooled one. On long ranges, the radial engines are far more reliable. And if you loose a cooling line on takeoff for any random reason, then your mission is over. Ive never heard of an air cooled engine forcing a an early end to a mission due to a coolant leak.

lancs had little/no escort over Europe??

Lancs flew at night negating the need for extensive fighter escort. If you say that the Lanc would then fly missions in the PTO at night, that means the B24 wins for being able to perform missions night and day.

now hold on one cotton picking minute, what source are you using for the B-24 being easier to build? do you actually have anything to back that claim up?

Nearly 19,000 B24's were built. At one point, the Willow Run assembly plant was producing one B24 every hour. Imagine that, a group of B24's every two days.

now hold on one cotton picking minute

hehehhehe, I havent heard that phrase in awhile

Alright now. What fricken simulations are you talking about? I dont know of any simulations except for your own, which carry absolutly no weight at all, what so ever!

You show me some sources for these simulations or stop bring them up, because you playing at your PC does not hold up.

Simulations show that simulations are vaild. besides, why do you suppose the simulations have to be on a PC?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Then tell me who made the simulations and what the source was? All you say is simulations and until you can give sources they are not valid. Sorry but your simulations are being thrown out the window here. They are getting old and I will show you an example of how your simulations sound.

Simulations have shown that the B-29 would have been vulnerable to the colder temperatures at high alltitudes over Europe because the engines would freeze.

No that thing I just said up there is not true or meant to be taken seriously, but it sounds just like yours. Made up to support your ideas so show some sources here for your simulations and not ones that you made up!

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

A hit in the cockpit has far more potential of causing problems with a single pilot than two pilots

if you're hitting the cockpit with machine guns and cannon then you're going to put more than one shell in the cockpit, you're going to put several in there, easily killing both pilots...........

And bullets when fired tend to have a mind of their own when being fired. Where you aim at is not necessarily where it hits

that is true however the margins of movement away from the point of aim aren't going to cause bullets to land in the cockpit if aimed at the wings, members with experience with machine guns will back me up on that one.......

and you managed to reply to my point about the engines without even making allowance for the RADIAL ENGINED LANCASTERS THAT DID EXIST AND DID SEE EXTENSIVE SERVICE..........

Lancs flew at night negating the need for extensive fighter escort

firstly she was designed as a night bomber, secondly does that mean that the fighters she was up against were any worse than by day? large radar guided killers with numerous large cannon and rediculously intense flak if you're "coned" in spotlights sounds pretty bad.........

Nearly 19,000 B24's were built

that is not an argument for the B-24 being easier to build

At one point, the Willow Run assembly plant was producing one B24 every hour

at times lancs were being produced one an hour or that's what they say, is it true for either plane? unlikely, just a propagander tool.......

and what about the B-24's versatility? what range of weapons could that tiny weapons bay hold? how easily modified was she for different roles?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Lanc, simulations prove that all that is wrong.....

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

 

[syscom3]

Then tell me who made the simulations and what the source was? All you say is simulations and until you can give sources they are not valid. Sorry but your simulations are being thrown out the window here. They are getting old and I will show you an example of how your simulations sound.

Simulations have shown that the B-29 would have been vulnerable to the colder temperatures at high alltitudes over Europe because the engines would freeze.

No that thing I just said up there is not true or meant to be taken seriously, but it sounds just like yours. Made up to support your ideas so show some sources here for your simulations and not ones that you made up!

B29's were used successfully in Alaska right after the war. I have never heard of engine problems like that.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Read my post completly before replying to it. I said that is was not true or meant to be taken seriously. I was showing you what your simulations posts are correct because you can never tell what simulation or who, what, where, when.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i think he just does it for laughs, not really working

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It is extremely annoying.

 

[syscom3]

if you're hitting the cockpit with machine guns and cannon then you're going to put more than one shell in the cockpit, you're going to put several in there, easily killing both pilots...........

Plenty of instances in the USAAF when one of the two pilots was killed and the other still flew the mission. Of course a well aimed burst could kill both. But the Lanc was vulnerable because of only one pilot.

that is true however the margins of movement away from the point of aim aren't going to cause bullets to land in the cockpit if aimed at the wings, members with experience with machine guns will back me up on that one.......

If your at point blank range, you will probably hit it. If your at longer ranges coming in at different angles, plus the normal dispersion of the bullets, then your going to hit a lot more than what you were aiming at.

and you managed to reply to my point about the engines without even making allowance for the RADIAL ENGINED LANCASTERS THAT DID EXIST AND DID SEE EXTENSIVE SERVICE..........

I was giving thought to it. Since the radial engined Lancs was an extensive modification, I didnt think it would be fair to compare it to the B24 without it getting a significent modification in return. That would be like me comparing a B32 to a Merlin engined Lanc. A minor modification would be something like new gun turrets, or even adding another pilot station.

firstly she was designed as a night bomber, secondly does that mean that the fighters she was up against were any worse than by day? large radar guided killers with numerous large cannon and rediculously intense flak if you're "coned" in spotlights sounds pretty bad.........

I'm not aware of the RAF using massed fighter escort at night as the 8th used during the day.

that is not an argument for the B-24 being easier to build

Being able to produce that many bombers within a couple of years sure is an indication of its ease of manufacture. Is there any other way to describe it?

at times lancs were being produced one an hour or that's what they say, is it true for either plane? unlikely, just a propagander tool.......

Thats not propaganda. Its a fact. Actually it was close to one every 56 minutes, which corresponds to 25.7 per day.

and what about the B-24's versatility? what range of weapons could that tiny weapons bay hold? how easily modified was she for different roles?

As well as its bombing role, It was used as a tanker, transport, photo recon and maritime patrol. Although the extra large bomb bay of the lanc did allow it to carry over sized bombs, the jury's still out whether it was worth the effort to build and use them.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Okay and what about the Vulnerability of the B-24 to catching fire. More vulnerable than the Lanc.

I think the argument has passed you syscom. I think we are debating which aircraft would be 6th right now.

It was agreed on by just about everone:

1. B-29
2. Lancaster
3. B-17
4. B-24
5. Halifax
6. ?????

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Okay and what about the Vulnerability of the B-24 to catching fire. More vulnerable than the Lanc.

I think the argument has passed you syscom. I think we are debating which aircraft would be 6th right now.

It was agreed on by just about everone:

1. B-29
2. Lancaster
3. B-17
4. B-24
5. Halifax
6. ?????

Sterling.......