Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

Gnomey · Dec 30, 2005

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...

FLYBOYJ · Dec 30, 2005

Gnomey said:
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...

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 · Dec 30, 2005

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.

FLYBOYJ · Dec 30, 2005

syscom3 said:
It looks like none of you can handle the fact the Lanc couldnt operate in the PTO as well as the B24.

It it because it's propellers rotate opposite from American Bombers?

syscom3 said:
Plus the B17 was proven to not be able to operate effectively in the PTO means it should be 3rd at best.

You're talking about early models - it was decided the -17 was more suited and needed for the ETO, nothing magical...

syscom3 said:
And the Lanc was just as prone to catching fire as the B24.

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 · Dec 30, 2005

B17's were withdrawn from service from the PTO due to range issues.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.

Nonskimmer · Dec 30, 2005

syscom3 said:
The Lanc with the radial engine setup was almost a completley different design,

What do you mean?

syscom3 · Dec 30, 2005

Its a whole different engine. Completley different.

Nonskimmer · Dec 30, 2005

Ah, right. I thought you were meaning the design of the plane itself. Sorry.

FLYBOYJ · Dec 30, 2005

syscom3 said:
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.

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 priority

.

syscom3 said:
And the Corolis effect meant the british props were spinning in the wrong direction with added strain.

Like the toilet going the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere

syscom3 said:
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.

good points, I agree about the B-32

syscom3 said:
Its still a tie. Lanc could go further with more bombs, but at a cost of a higher loss rate.

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 · Dec 30, 2005

Well, if you put it that way, the Lanc wins.

the lancaster kicks ass · Dec 31, 2005

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.

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..............

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

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!

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?

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........

Its a fact. Actually it was close to one every 56 minutes, which corresponds to 25.7 per day

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...........

As well as its bombing role, It was used as a tanker, transport, photo recon and maritime patrol

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?

It looks like none of you can handle the fact the Lanc couldnt operate in the PTO as well as the B24

re-phrase that to DIDN'T not couldn't, and how does that make the lanc a bad bomber?

And the Corolis effect meant the british props were spinning in the wrong direction with added strain

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?

the B24 was superior in ease of manufacture

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..........

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Dec 31, 2005

Jesus Christ that took long eneogh to resolve!

the lancaster kicks ass · Dec 31, 2005

i don't believe for one second he's given up, he didn't say "the lanc wins then" he said

Well, if you put it that way, the Lanc wins

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

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Dec 31, 2005

No someother simulation that he only knows about, will be his reason.

syscom3 · Dec 31, 2005

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 · Dec 31, 2005

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 · Dec 31, 2005

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.

the lancaster kicks ass · Dec 31, 2005

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.............

FLYBOYJ · Dec 31, 2005

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 · Dec 31, 2005

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

Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

Globetrotting Surgeon General

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Pacific Historian

Captain

Pacific Historian

Captain

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Pacific Historian

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Pacific Historian

Major General

Pacific Historian

Attachments

Major General

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major General

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads