Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

Erich · Jan 1, 2006

Sys let me get the receord stright for you and others about 18 of march 45. I even wrote Roger Freeman the 8th AF historain to get his records on tap as he used the official 8th records for the date but they were incorrect.

III./JG 7 pounded B-17 formations with their R4M's/3cm's and in a seperate engagement on the same date I./JG 7 roared in with their 4 3cm canons. The proof is 20 B-17 destroyed, and none of the 8 claimed by ground flak were verified. this was the case of the attack by the R4M's, it was so quick and violent surviving B-17 crewman saw their buddies and tehm BOOM ! that was it....... all by R4M's. I have interviewed at least 3 B-17 crews that wintessed the action and were horrified at the event with nothing they could do but try and pop of .50's at the jets which they could not even track. have thought very seriously the last 20 years on publishing a small booklet on the date.

no mention of Night fighter actions I see, and I understand this well as they are not well covered.

Sadly there was plenty of death in the skies, you might want to pick up volume 2 of JG 300 by Eagle Editions this spring 2006 and read the events which were many surrounding this Reich defence unit. both JG 300 and 301 besides JG 7 jets fought agasint eh US/RAF and the Soviets on both fronts, besdies the Nachtjagd esepcially NJG 5 fighting RAF bombers and then hitting Soviet armor and MT columns trying to access Berlin and the environs. If anything in the ETO the spring months of 1945 became more diverse for the Luftwaffe than any other time in their miserble existance.

E ~

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jan 1, 2006

Syscom I am sorry but none of your arguments prove anything. You have not proven that the Lanc was not easy to build. You have not proven that the Lanc would have sustained more losses, nore have proven anything.

2nd I am telling you one last time, give it up on your simulations crap. First of all they dont prove anything because you can not source them, and they really dont prove anything because you doing simulations on your PC dont count for anything.

Jesus this is really getting annoying!

syscom3 · Jan 1, 2006

Erich, youre correct about the loss's. I checked the MACR's for March 18 1945 and there were 19 missing B17's and B24's that day from the 8th AF. If you say that the loss's were due to the jet fighters, I yield to your data.

I was using his book as the source of data for the mission stats for this time period, and hes usually accurate about this.

Erich · Jan 1, 2006

Usually............Roger has some vast data although US sources only. His cross checking was rather lame. I also sent him a note(s) on the Sturmgruppen missions esepcially the 27 September 44 date and he was shocked.

Besides and this is where I really get pissed off but not all the MACR'sa are accounted for. this is very eveident with the B-26 formations, the bomb group historians just say "oh well". The loss of them and not being in any particular order is bad enough but when one is copied from a lousy, sloppy typewritten or penciled in report from a lazy staff corporal you can see why even with the order with the US armed forces that things can go awry. It is very very frustrating. some of the top notch European historians have nearly thrown up theri hands in disgust. I know I have too many times

syscom3 · Jan 1, 2006

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Syscom I am sorry but none of your arguments prove anything. You have not proven that the Lanc was not easy to build. You have not proven that the Lanc would have sustained more losses, nore have proven anything.

I have more than proven some of my points. The fact that the B24 could be built in 56 minutes proves that point without a doubt. Untill someone gives some data on the production time for a Lanc, then my assertion stands.

And of course the Lanc would have had higher loss's. You seem not to be able to disprove my assertions that radial engines are better able to handle damage as they dont have radiators that can be shot out, the long ranges in the PTO magnified any damage problems and having a second pilot at the controls to immediatly take command is far safer than having a single pilot at the controls.

Plus the B24 was better armed than the Lanc was, plain and simple. Ten .50's beats eight .303's any day.

2nd I am telling you one last time, give it up on your simulations crap. First of all they dont prove anything because you can not source them, and they really dont prove anything because you doing simulations on your PC dont count for anything.

Why do you presume my simulations are on a flight sim? Ever hear of a plain old calculator and pen and pencil and doing some math? Why are you the only one that doesnt have a sense of humor about it?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jan 1, 2006

syscom3 said:
The fact that the B24 could be built in 56 minutes proves that point without a doubt.

Do you really think that it only takes 56 minutes to build an aircraft. All that mean is that one is rolling out the doors every 56 minutes. A baby is born every 1 minute, that does not mean that from the time the ejaculation occurs to the time the baby pops out is 1 minute! If you truely think that 56 minutes is all it took to build a Liberator, you really are naive! Trust me I am a maintainer of an aircraft, it is not building it but it gives me somewhat of the idea. Just installing the electrical wiring would take days, more likely weeks.

The only thing this proves is the US industrial capacity, which has never been disputed.

syscom3 said:
And of course the Lanc would have had higher loss's.

Can you absolutly prove this. No you can not, the war is over.

syscom3 said:
You seem not to be able to disprove my assertions that radial engines are better able to handle damage as they dont have radiators that can be shot out,

And can you prove otherwise. While I agree that radials are better, you can not prove your point either. And just because a bomber has radial engines does not make it better than an inline powered bomber.

syscom3 said:
the long ranges in the PTO magnified any damage problems and having a second pilot at the controls to immediatly take command is far safer than having a single pilot at the controls.

And that is one advantage that everyone as agreed on, but that one advantage does not outweigh the advantages of the Lancaster.

syscom3 said:
Plus the B24 was better armed than the Lanc was, plain and simple. Ten .50's beats eight .303's any day.

Because the Lancaster was chosen for Night Bombing. Had it been chosen for Day Bombing it would have recieved better armament. What is your damn point?

syscom3 said:
Why do you presume my simulations are on a flight sim? Ever hear of a plain old calculator and pen and pencil and doing some math? Why are you the only one that doesnt have a sense of humor about it?

Because even by doing that you can not prove how one aircraft is better than the other, and it is getting fucking annoying! It is not about humor anymore but about being annoying!

FLYBOYJ · Jan 1, 2006

syscom3 said:
I have more than proven some of my points. The fact that the B24 could be built in 56 minutes proves that point without a doubt. Untill someone gives some data on the production time for a Lanc, then my assertion stands.

One rolled evey 56 minutes. It probably took 30 days to deliver one, from when metal was first cut, till it rolled on the flight line....

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jan 1, 2006

Yeap that is what I said in my posting.

the lancaster kicks ass · Jan 1, 2006

sys, put it this way, i can think of atleast one other person that's getting annoyed by the simulations talk

how about we stop listening you to trying to promote the B-24's one or two advantages over the lanc, and look AGAIN and just some of the advantages of the lanc over the B-24...........

payload
manoeuvrability
cruising speed
payload to range
versatility
total tonnage
tonnage per sortie
tonnage per aircraft lost

along with other advantages, and you go on about the losses of the lanc, not only were they only about 0.5% greater than the B-24's, but look at the tonnage dropped per aircraft lost, the lancaster dropped 203 tons of bombs per aircraft lost, the B-24 dropped a meager 125 tons of bombs per aircraft lost, says something, no?

and about the "ease" of manufacture of the B-24, i am looking into the production figures of the lanc, as of yet you have not proved the B-24 was easier to produce, not by any means, simply because to compare two aircraft on a point like this implies you have to have the same information about both planes..............

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jan 1, 2006

The only thing that the production implies is the great US production capacity which is pretty much undisputed.

syscom3 · Jan 1, 2006

the lancaster kicks ass said:
sys, put it this way, i can think of atleast one other person that's getting annoyed by the simulations talk

I dont bring up the simulator comments, you guys do. I only respond. Hint... go back and check the posts.

Hint.... lighten up and laugh

):

how about we stop listening you to trying to promote the B-24's one or two advantages over the lanc, and look AGAIN and just some of the advantages of the lanc over the B-24...........

Agree'd payload
Agree'd manoeuvrability
Agree'd cruising speed
Agree'd payload to range
Agree'd total tonnage
Agree'd tonnage per sortie
Agree'd tonnage per aircraft lost

versatility i disagree as both with just as equal.

B24 advantages:
two pilot cockpit
better defensive firepower
radial engines less prone to damage
flew in every theater. Lanc had zero sorties in the PTO

We know how the B24 performed in the PTO. We have no idea how the Lanc would have performed as it never flew there. Big difference between actuall performance and hypothetical performance.

along with other advantages, and you go on about the losses of the lanc, not only were they only about 0.5% greater than the B-24's, but look at the tonnage dropped per aircraft lost, the lancaster dropped 203 tons of bombs per aircraft lost, the B-24 dropped a meager 125 tons of bombs per aircraft lost, says something, no?

If the B24 was operating at night, the loss would be far lower. If the Lanc was operating during the day, its loss's would be higher. In the PTO, the Lanc would have to do both, and thats where its loss rate would go up.

and about the "ease" of manufacture of the B-24, i am looking into the production figures of the lanc, as of yet you have not proved the B-24 was easier to produce, not by any means, simply because to compare two aircraft on a point like this implies you have to have the same information about both planes..............

18,000 produced at the rate of of one per hour implies it was easily mass produced.

Now of course, if the whole idea is to drop bombs on the target and getting shotdown is tough luck, then the Lanc wins. But then you had better have a pipleline of bombers and crews to make up for it.

Erich · Jan 1, 2006

actually the B-24 was flown on missions at night with US 15th AF 2461st special ops group I believe. the poor suckers got nailed in the spring of 1945 by Ju 88G-6's of NJG 100 using Schrägwaffen. I was able to help tow seperate families find reason of lost of kin and the fatality of the B-24's of Austria and Yugoslavia.

Also flown at night by the RAF, the B-24's were painted solid black and actually look quite mean in their dark camo

Glider · Jan 2, 2006

An observation about this discussion (argument?) about rate of production.

Like the rest of you I don't know what the peak production of the Lancaster was. However I do know that peak production of the Halifax was one an hour, and would be surprised if that of the Lancaster was far behind being a very similar plane in complexity. Rough sums tell me that around five to six a day were produced on average from beginning of production to the end. Add in the inevitable time taken to build up production and the tapering off of production there shouldn't be much in it.

However the argument is rather pointless for the following reasons. American factories operated in a peace time environment. They were not attacked, their supplies were secure, sub contractors were secure, power was secure, raw materials were secure, the economy was better, the factories themselves could be designed and built for maximum production and not spread out in shadow factories like those in the UK to minimise damage.

They damn well should have been able to build planes faster than the UK.

If we could build a Halifax at the rate of one and hour with all the difficulties outlined above, I have one question for Syscom.

WHY WERE THE USA SO SLOW?

Glider · Jan 2, 2006

Now I have that off my chest. I don't see why a Lancaster would suffer heavier losses in the PTO. Lancasters were in service with twin .50 at the end of the war and there was a version that had it own built in gun laying radar in the rear turret. Its not the same as the B24 but its an improvement. Also Jap fighters were less well armed than the German fighters, didn't perform as well at height, were less able to take damage than German fighters. Plus of course compared to German defences they had little if any effective defence against night time bombing raids.

How on earth do Lancasters suffer worse losses in these situations?

Dogwalker · Jan 2, 2006

syscom3 said:
18,000 produced at the rate of of one per hour implies it was easily mass produced.

If you don't have datas of the number of persons involved in the production of the two planes, is the same thing to say that, since in the USA born a baby every 5 minutes, and in Germany one every 15 minutes, American babyes are easier to build (is an example, I don't know the rate of production of babyes in the two countries).

syscom3 said:
B24 advantages:
two pilot cockpit...

On the other hand, a two pilot cockpit implies that two highly trained pilots were lost with every planes shot down. If the datas posted above are correct, the loss rate of pilots over the two planes were of 2,1 for lancs and 3,2 for B24 (without counting the few that were rescued). If the main problem is the shortage of machines, a two pilot cockpit is better, if the main problem is the shortage of men, it's not.

DogW

the lancaster kicks ass · Jan 2, 2006

radial engines less prone to damage

you list this as an advantage for the B-24 yet the lancaster was fitted with radials, which we have been over time and again............

Big difference between actuall performance and hypothetical performance.

if you know this's true why do you base so much on simulations

In the PTO, the Lanc would have to do both, and thats where its loss rate would go up

she did both over Europe, over 40,000 sorties she flew by day, that's not an ignorable ammount...........

the lancaster kicks ass · Jan 2, 2006

right, lancaster production, we'll look at the A.V. Roe Co. Ltd. figures as this company lead the lancaster production group.

so, at the peak of production in August 1944 they produced 155 combat ready lancasters, many parts were produced at Chadderton, then assebled at Woodford, and Yeadon built many of their own parts and assembled them on site.

at the peak of production these sites employed 24,036 people, working day and night shifts, this figure accounts for absolutely EVERYONE, from the bosses to the guy that makes the tea to the guy that sweeps the floors and even the test pilots that didn't even help produce the lancs! but i couldn't get any more figures than i have so it'll have to do

what does this mean? it means that at this one company it took 155 people to make a lanc, i don't know how useful this figure is, but we'll see if you have any similar data, and please god if you try and calculate the same stat for the B-24 don't work on the premice that one B-24 took an hour to make then times that by however many hours there are in a month to get what you think is how many they made in a month, actually get the figure for how many were made at the plant in one month, and how many imployees were needed..........

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jan 2, 2006

Syscom3 again your argument about simplicity to build does not hold up. If there are 5 factories building a B-24 and only 1 building a Lancaster, more B-24s are going to be built. It did not take 1 hour to build a B-24. Are you blind and not reading what everyone has already told you about that, because you keep repeating stuff that people have already debated and told you was wrong. It took atleat 4 weeks to build a B-24 not 1 HOUR! That must means that one was finished every hour, not built in an hourDoes not mean didly squat! More Bf-109s were buiolt than Fw-190s. Does that mean that the Fw-190 was harder to build than a Bf-109. Hell know.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 2, 2006

Dogwalker said:
syscom3 said:

18,000 produced at the rate of of one per hour implies it was easily mass produced.

Click to expand...

If you don't have datas of the number of persons involved in the production of the two planes, is the same thing to say that, since in the USA born a baby every 5 minutes, and in Germany one every 15 minutes, American babyes are easier to build (is an example, I don't know the rate of production of babyes in the two countries).

DogW

It was a fact that a B-24 was produced every hour, ONE ROLLED OUT THE DOOR EVERY HOUR it took about 30 days to produce an entire bomber - Lockheed, North American and other manufacturers made similar bosts - the only reason why this was accomplished because the resources and people were available and sometimes US aircraft were being produced at several locations at the same time - and Glider was right, the US had the luxury of a "peacetime" production environment where all the factories were free of enemy actions...

Dogwalker said:
syscom3 said:

t;]B24 advantages:
two pilot cockpit...

Click to expand...

On the other hand, a two pilot cockpit implies that two highly trained pilots were lost with every planes shot down. If the datas posted above are correct, the loss rate of pilots over the two planes were of 2,1 for lancs and 3,2 for B24 (without counting the few that were rescued). If the main problem is the shortage of machines, a two pilot cockpit is better, if the main problem is the shortage of men, it's not.

The RAF definitely had a manpower shortage at the beginning of the war, well documented during the Battle of Britain. The US didn't have that problem with pilots..

Even with a pilot shortage a two man cockpit will always be the better flight crew configuration for reasons previously posted, mainly flying IMC.

the lancaster kicks ass said:
right, lancaster production, we'll look at the A.V. Roe Co. Ltd. figures as this company lead the lancaster production group.

so, at the peak of production in August 1944 they produced 155 combat ready lancasters, many parts were produced at Chadderton, then assebled at Woodford, and Yeadon built many of their own parts and assembled them on site.

at the peak of production these sites employed 24,036 people, working day and night shifts, this figure accounts for absolutely EVERYONE, from the bosses to the guy that makes the tea to the guy that sweeps the floors and even the test pilots that didn't even help produce the lancs! but i couldn't get any more figures than i have so it'll have to do

what does this mean? it means that at this one company it took 155 people to make a lanc, i don't know how useful this figure is, but we'll see if you have any similar data, and please god if you try and calculate the same stat for the B-24 don't work on the premice that one B-24 took an hour to make then times that by however many hours there are in a month to get what you think is how many they made in a month, actually get the figure for how many were made at the plant in one month, and how many imployees were needed..........

What you're leaving out Lanc is the thousands of sub contractors that manufactured smaller sheet metal and aluminum parts. As stated the ONLY reason why the B-24 achieved those production numbers was because of an automotive style production line at various facilities set up by Ford Manufacturing Chief Charles Sorenson. Convair pooled in people and resources to make all this happen.

When you're building a large aircraft, "a plane is a plane, is a plane, is a plane." I built P-3s, L1011s and B-2s and could tell you the production line environment was the same, if you have the people and material you could build one an hour anywhere, anytime. Bottom line, the B-24 was no harder or easier to build than the Lancaster, the B-24 production line had the luxury of people and material in a "peacetime" environment. If given the same situation, I'm sure the Lancaster could of been produced at the same rate.....

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jan 2, 2006

There you go again Syscom another person has repeated what I was saying. As a matter of fact me and FBJ have been repeating this over and over.

Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

the old Sage

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Pacific Historian

the old Sage

Pacific Historian

Private Chemtrail Disperser

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Pacific Historian

the old Sage

Captain

Captain

Senior Airman

Major General

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads