- Thread starter
-
- #701
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
the lancaster kicks ass said: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
Look at the chart above - the worst loss of heavy bombers in a single month was 24?!? - Over Europe that was a great month!!!
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 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
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.
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 said:Well I just added jet engines to my Lancaster and a 2nd pilot, so there mines better and it can beat yours up!
syscom3 said:DerAdlerIstGelandet said: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!
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.............
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!
lancs had little/no escort over Europe??
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?
now hold on one cotton picking minute
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.
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
Lancs flew at night negating the need for extensive fighter escort
Nearly 19,000 B24's were built
At one point, the Willow Run assembly plant was producing one B24 every hour
DerAdlerIstGelandet said: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!
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...........
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..........
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.........
that is not an argument for the B-24 being easier to build
at times lancs were being produced one an houror 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 said: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. ?????