Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

[the lancaster kicks ass]

well that figure took into account most of the parts manufactured, i can list for you the smaller companies and what they produced however i didn't have their staff figures so there's not allot of point anyway

unless, do you wanna come at it in a different way, how many components to the B-24 were there?

 

[syscom3]

WHY WERE THE USA SO SLOW?

Simple answer to you. Because the US didnt begin the air force buildup (USAAF and USN) untill 1941. And congress wasnt going to allocate money for all those factories untill we actually were at war. Plus there were unique propblems on the macro-economics level that had to be overcome. First, we (the US) is a almost a continental in size unlike the UK which is a small island of sorts. Factories had to be built across the nation for military and political reasons which tended to slow things down for construction. Second, huge numbers of people had to be recruited to build the plants, let alone the aircraft. Housing and transportation for them had to be arranged or built for them.

Many times production suffered at first because enough skilled workers were not present Once the buildings and workers were in place then production ramped up.

Then, of course we were also building the B17 at the same time as the B24. That took production capacity away from the B24. Add the workload for Boeing and Convair associated with the B29, B32 and B36, and its amazing we could have even built a couple of the new factories for the
B24.

So if youre saying why we were so slow? Because there were bonafide reasons why production didnt ramp up untill 1943.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Here's someting intersting about B-24 production

B-24 Production Pool
To meet the foreseen large demand for the B-24, the government set up a consortium of aircraft manufacturers and plants to build the plane:
CO - Consolidated/San Diego plant
CF - Consolidated/Fort Worth plant
DT - Douglas/Tulsa plant
FO - Ford/Willow Run plant
NT - North American/Dallas plant
The story of Ford's Willow Run plant could fill a book in itself. They broke ground in April, 1941; by September, it was complete - an 80 acre factory. Dormitories were built on the site and a commuter rail line was extended to it. Designed by Ford executives like Charles Sorenson, Willow Run got off to a slow start, as its automobile, assembly-line style of manufacturing had to be adapted to aircraft production. By mid-1943, with 42,000 employees, it began to turn out B-24s - 230 per month. By the end of 1944, 650 per month. When production ended in April, 1945, Willow Run had turned out over 8,600 Liberators.
The Liberator Production Pool did not operate completely trouble-free. Parts made by different factories were not always interchangeable, and implementing the countless required changes consistently was a headache. Eventually, separate "modification centers" were set up to upgrade planes that had just left the factory, but were already obsolescent.

What is shown here is a disadvantage in an automotive style production line for aircraft and why today most aircraft are built in "segments' and come together at one major final assembly location....

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

odd, http://www.michiganhistorymagazine.com/extra/willow_run/willow_run.html seems to think their biggest output was 428 a month??

 

[FLYBOYJ]

odd, http://www.michiganhistorymagazine.com/extra/willow_run/willow_run.html seems to think their biggest output was 428 a month??

yes, but factor in the other plants and I'm sure you'll come up with the "ONE AN HOUR" claim....

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Good post up there FBJ.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i posted that in reply to your source that said their peak output was 650- they can't both be right, unless yours is for all the plants combined.........

 

[syscom3]

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?

The IJA and IJN was more than capable of shooting down allied bombers when the pilots were experienced and were using later model fighters. As good as the Germans, nope. Good enough to take their toll? Yes. You forget that the bombing altitudes were far lower than in the ETO and if anything, that meant the fast climbing Japanese fighters could get into the thick of things quickly. Now the Japanese had also adopted the technique of head on attacks, so the twin .50's in the tail werent going to help you. What you needed was the firepower up front.

Now why do I suppose that that the Lanc would have a higher loss rate? As I listed many times, the tremendous ranges meant that what would be considered minor damages in the short runs in the ETO, would soon become moderate and then severe damage in the longers flights int he PTO. Think about it. A minor coolant leak in one of the Merlins tht could be ignored by the crew on a 3 hour flight back to base could be catastophic on a 7 hour flight in the PTO. Add in the lack of defensive firepower against any fighters, plus a single pilot in the cockpit, and its inevitable the loss's would be higher than the B24.

Ive given thought to the Lanc being used only on nighttime raids. If used for only this operation, then it would perform almost as well as the B24 (single pilot does mean a lot on long missions). However, the B24 could be used day or night. That means it would be more versatile (IN THE PTO!!!!!!!).

By the start of 1945, the US had bases all over the PTO and the Japanese airforce had pretty much collapsed from, so the point about the long ranges was moot. Plus once the Japanese fighter threat had dissapeared, the lack of defensive firepower for the Lanc was also less important. But by that time, the B29's were flying and the B17/B24 and Lanc were obsolescent.

One thing I will admit where the Lanc would have been superior in the PTO was in the lifeboat role. That big bomb bay could be opened up and used to good effect to carry lifeboats to drop to crews of downed planes.

 

[KraziKanuK]

If one gets the chance to visit Oshgosh, visit the EAA museum. Besides the fantasic aircraft, they have a display and model of the Willow Run plant. It was massive.

 

[syscom3]

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).

If a Volkswagon car plant says they could build 1000 vehicles in a day, that means 1000 would come off the assembly line. Since its fact that Willow Run at its peak was producing 25 B24's per day, that means 25 B24's were coming off the asembly line.

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.
[/quote]

Two pilots means greater efficiency, and it also means if one pilot is incapacitated, then the other takes over. Think of how many Lancs could have returned to base if the pilot hadnt been killed or wounded.

 

[Dogwalker]

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

This is true, from the rest of the crew's point of view, but they know only a piece of the story.
In general, the redundancy of every system of a plane is an advantage in case of malfunction (or distruction). On the other hand, every redoundant system costs in terms of weight (to transport), time and money (to build).
Pilots are, by far, the most expensive item mounted on a WWII bomber. It's a matter of discussion if the eventuality of a "single pilot's malfunction", compared with all the other possible damages that could cause the loss of a plane, is so probable to justify to add another one, and to risk to lose them both.

DogW

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

If a Volkswagon car plant says they could build 1000 vehicles in a day, that means 1000 would come off the assembly line. Since its fact that Willow Run at its peak was producing 25 B24's per day, that means 25 B24's were coming off the asembly line.

Just please tell me that you understand that it did not take 54 minutest to build a B-24.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

[
This is true, from the rest of the crew's point of view, but they know only a piece of the story.
In general, the redundancy of every system of a plane is an advantage in case of malfunction (or distruction). On the other hand, every redoundant system costs in terms of weight (to transport), time and money (to build).
Pilots are, by far, the most expensive item mounted on a WWII bomber. It's a matter of discussion if the eventuality of a "single pilot's malfunction", compared with all the other possible damages that could cause the loss of a plane, is so probable to justify to add another one, and to risk to lose them both.

DogW

Generally yes, but most aircraft are designed around the mission and crew. That way the weight is already calculated into the design and does not really effect anything. So 2 pilots still is better than one.

 

[Dogwalker]

If a Volkswagon car plant says they could build 1000 vehicles in a day, that means 1000 would come off the assembly line.

Yes, I agree, that no means that a Golf is easier to assembly than a Fiat Multipla, even if only 100 Multipla leave the plant every day.

DogW

 

[syscom3]

well that figure took into account most of the parts manufactured, i can list for you the smaller companies and what they produced however i didn't have their staff figures so there's not allot of point anyway

unless, do you wanna come at it in a different way, how many components to the B-24 were there?

For Willow Run:
488,193 parts
30,000 components
24 major sub assemblies
25,000 initial engineering drawings
34,533 employee's at peak

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

As I listed many times, the tremendous ranges meant that what would be considered minor damages in the short runs in the ETO, would soon become moderate and then severe damage in the longers flights int he PTO. Think about it. A minor coolant leak in one of the Merlins tht could be ignored by the crew on a 3 hour flight back to base could be catastophic on a 7 hour flight in the PTO.

we've been over this again and again, the lanc was fitted with radials! and the lanc could fly very long ranges on 3 engines, which i've heard isn't the case with the B-24............

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

This is going to be a never ending debate here, I have a feeling.

 

[syscom3]

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.

One Factory of B24's built more Lancs total. Enough said.

There is lots of supporting facts that a B24 was built in one hour.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

so what if the one factory produced more, that one factory was proberly the biggest in the world, in one of the largest industrail nations in the world, look at it this way, i'll use summit other that planes, summit like....toilet seats!

so, one man takes 1.5 hours to make a hand crafted toilet seat, whereas two men take 1 hour to make annother toilet seat, which is quicker/easier to produce?

the first toilet seat took 1.5 man hours to make, the second took two man hours to make because there were two men working on it for an hour, just beacuse something is produced in more numbers/faster than something else that doesn't mean it's easier to build..........

 

[syscom3]

..... If given the same situation, I'm sure the Lancaster could of been produced at the same rate.....

Wasnt there a Lanc plant in Canada that was building planes in a peacetime operation?