I would agree with that FBJ, I see no other viable candidiate although I'm sure CC will make a case for the P-108...
Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3
- Thread starter DerAdlerIstGelandet
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Gnomey said:
The P.108 had potential, but its actual record was less then dismal. Had it played out it might of been close to say the B-17, but I think that's pushing it. I consider it one of Mussolini's "Paper Tiger" weapons...
Although the Sterling had its limitations, it was there in the thick of the initial RAF bombing of Germany and when it's limitations were apparent, served well as a glider tow and transport aircraft.
Although the Luftwaffe used 3 of the transport versions of the P.108, they had most of the combat versions fall into their hands after Italy fell - they basically parked them...
syscom3
Pacific Historian
It looks like none of you can handle the fact the Lanc couldnt operate in the PTO as well as the B24.
Plus the B17 was proven to not be able to operate effectively in the PTO means it should be 3rd at best.
And the Lanc was just as prone to catching fire as the B24.
Plus the B17 was proven to not be able to operate effectively in the PTO means it should be 3rd at best.
And the Lanc was just as prone to catching fire as the B24.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
It it because it's propellers rotate opposite from American Bombers?syscom3 said:
You're talking about early models - it was decided the -17 was more suited and needed for the ETO, nothing magical...syscom3 said:
syscom3 said:
The -24 was notorious for catching fire, ask any -24 crew. If you saw my thread about my Uncles, Uncle Joe was a B-24 bombardier. He distinctively told me the thing was a giant fume can. So bad were some of the transfer valve leaks in the bomb bays crews actually cracked the bomb bay doors during take off and landings. That was generic through the entire B-24 fleet in all theaters.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
B17's were withdrawn from service from the PTO due to range issues. Gen Kenney never liked them as much as a -24 and wanted the -24 whenever possible. The B17 never met the Lancs and B24's ranges.
Your right about the -24's "fire proness". It was with some success, mitigated by cracking the bomb bay tanks.
And the Corolis effect meant the british props were spinning in the wrong direction with added strain.
No seriously, the B24 was superior to the Lanc in defensive firepower, the two pilot setup was almost mandantory in the PTO, the B24 was superior in ease of manufacture. Plus the Merlin couldnt handle damage as well as the radial engine damaged.
The Lanc was definetly superior in range and payload.
Both were equal in night bombing capability.
The Lanc with the radial engine setup was almost a completley different design, in which would qualify it for PTO missions. But then, the B32 with the -3350's was essentially a B24 on steroids so Id say compare the radial engined Lanc with the B32 for a fair comparison.
Its still a tie. Lanc could go further with more bombs, but at a cost of a higher loss rate.
Your right about the -24's "fire proness". It was with some success, mitigated by cracking the bomb bay tanks.
And the Corolis effect meant the british props were spinning in the wrong direction with added strain.
No seriously, the B24 was superior to the Lanc in defensive firepower, the two pilot setup was almost mandantory in the PTO, the B24 was superior in ease of manufacture. Plus the Merlin couldnt handle damage as well as the radial engine damaged.
The Lanc was definetly superior in range and payload.
Both were equal in night bombing capability.
The Lanc with the radial engine setup was almost a completley different design, in which would qualify it for PTO missions. But then, the B32 with the -3350's was essentially a B24 on steroids so Id say compare the radial engined Lanc with the B32 for a fair comparison.
Its still a tie. Lanc could go further with more bombs, but at a cost of a higher loss rate.
Nonskimmer
Captain
What do you mean?syscom3 said:
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Its a whole different engine. Completley different.
Nonskimmer
Captain
Ah, right. I thought you were meaning the design of the plane itself. Sorry.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
That was the decision of General Kenney, but then again if he wanted B-17s he would of had to wait - the ETO had the prioritysyscom3 said:
.
Like the toilet going the opposite direction in the southern hemispheresyscom3 said:
good points, I agree about the B-32syscom3 said:
I'd give it to the Lanc - I hate to say it sending more bombs to the target was the objective - the crew getting back, well was probably secondary and I'm sure that Bomber Harris would agree!syscom3 said:
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Well, if you put it that way, the Lanc wins.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
the Mk.II was a major mark, it wasn't just a modification of a few planes, if we were disscussing the spitfire for example would you discount the Mk.IX as it's baisically a Mk.V with a better engine? of course you wouldn't, should we disscount the B-24J?? well if you're gonna count the Mk.II as a modification and thus discard it then i don't see how discarding, for example, the B-24J is any different..............
that's exactily the point i'm trying to prove, you said the lanc couldn't fly unescorted, what was she doing almost every night of the war!
and how many plants were producing them? how big were these plants? how many workers? when did production start? making lots of something doesn't always mean it's easy to build........
if it's a fact then you'll be able to give me a source, i'm not saying i don't believe you, i just want a source...........
how impressive
could she carry an upkeep? no, whereas the dambusting lancs were modified from planes with a few thousand miles on the clock, then after they did the raid they were actually converted back into their normal bombing configuration! could she carry a tallboy in her bomb bay without modification? no, how many different engines was she used as a test bed for? both piston and jet?re-phrase that to DIDN'T not couldn't, and how does that make the lanc a bad bomber?
the props on the merlin engined lancs rotated to the right, the Mk.IIs props rotated to the left, they can't both have spun the wrong way?
you haven't proved that yet...........
and as i keep saying some losses were always accepted on these raids, they were expected! their primary objective was to get bombs on target, which the stats prove the lanc did allot better than the B-24, so yes, the lanc wins..........
- Thread starter
- #732
Jesus Christ that took long eneogh to resolve!
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i don't believe for one second he's given up, he didn't say "the lanc wins then" he said
which knowing him means on in that way the lanc wins, he'll try and find annother way
but if you really are agreeing the lanc's better sys it's about time
which knowing him means on in that way the lanc wins, he'll try and find annother way
but if you really are agreeing the lanc's better sys it's about time
- Thread starter
- #734
No someother simulation that he only knows about, will be his reason.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
My simulation shows that the Lanc performs well enough in the PTO for a time, then all the crews have evntually been lost, which causes the Brits/Aussies to switch to B24's which were available in quantity and werent as often shot down.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
baisically you're conceeding, and admitting that the lancaster was a better bomber than the B-24? a simple yes or no will suffice.........
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Why should I give you a simple yes or no.
If one is willing to accept a far higher loss rate in the Lanc (which would be perhaps three times worse than the B24), yes its a better bomber. But unless you had a pipleine of them to replace the losses, then your bomber force would fade away after several missions.
Actually, Im beginning to think that the 2nd best bomber would have been the B32. It was in production, and a couple of groups were using them in operations. The stats were far better than the Lanc.
Now for you other comments:
1) Attached is a pdf file describing the Willow Run factory and the copious numbers of B24's it built.
2) I consider a change from an inline engine to a radial as a major change. Whole different nacelle, aerodynamics, engine controls, performace through various altitudes, fuel consumption, etc. Going from one version of the same engine to another version is a simple modification to the airframe, if it even would need mods.
If one is willing to accept a far higher loss rate in the Lanc (which would be perhaps three times worse than the B24), yes its a better bomber. But unless you had a pipleine of them to replace the losses, then your bomber force would fade away after several missions.
Actually, Im beginning to think that the 2nd best bomber would have been the B32. It was in production, and a couple of groups were using them in operations. The stats were far better than the Lanc.
Now for you other comments:
1) Attached is a pdf file describing the Willow Run factory and the copious numbers of B24's it built.
2) I consider a change from an inline engine to a radial as a major change. Whole different nacelle, aerodynamics, engine controls, performace through various altitudes, fuel consumption, etc. Going from one version of the same engine to another version is a simple modification to the airframe, if it even would need mods.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
but they made 300 hundred of them in two batches, they were produced as Mk.IIs not converted, how can you disscount them? yeah it's a majoy change, but they did it without any problems and if needed thousands could have been produced, i fail to see how you can just write them out?
and i can't open the .pdf file..........
do you have any stats to back up your claim that the B-24 had 1/3 the loss rate of the lanc? i make the B-24's loss rate to be about 1.6, the lanc's was slightly more than 2, it's more, but not 3 times more
and how can the B-32 be second best when she didn't see service over Europe i don't think anyone's going to agree with you about the B-32 being second best, infact most have already agreed the lanc is second best, and when i say most, i mean everyone but you.............
and i can't open the .pdf file..........
do you have any stats to back up your claim that the B-24 had 1/3 the loss rate of the lanc? i make the B-24's loss rate to be about 1.6, the lanc's was slightly more than 2, it's more, but not 3 times more
and how can the B-32 be second best when she didn't see service over Europe
i don't think anyone's going to agree with you about the B-32 being second best, infact most have already agreed the lanc is second best, and when i say most, i mean everyone but you.............
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The B-32 had the potential of being 2nd best but with only 5 or 6 reaching the pacific and seeing very little action I can't see how it could even be counted...
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
5 or 6, sys seems to think there were several groups in use? and 300 Mk.II lancs were produced and all were used operationally during the war, even the prototype saw use, so he wants to write off 300 lancs and is willing to count half a dozen of annother plane
and 300 Mk.II lancs were produced and all were used operationally during the war, even the prototype saw use, so he wants to write off 300 lancs and is willing to count half a dozen of annother plane - Status
