Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

syscom3 said:

The WASPS flew some of the bombers around, regular AAF crews ferried others.

Click to expand...

They ferried them over seas once a crew was assigned an airplane.

This site provides some information on how crews were assigned and given aircraft - most of the time this was done at a base...

http://www.armyairforces.com/

It was very common for every manufacturer to set up maintenance training at their facility. The school I went to when I first got my A&P licence was located at 96th Street and Sepulveda, just accross the street from LAX - or Mines Field, former home of NAA. B-25 mechanics were trained there....

well you americans were truly amazing a Liberty ship was constructed in just under 72 hours from the laying of the keel so a b24 in under 24hours might seem possible even if it was done as a propaganda tool although I'm not to sure on the complexities of ship building

The Liberty ship programme was amazing, most of the time taken in construction was bringing all the pieces together. The U.S had the manpower, area and materials to build a ship that quickly. There were so many shipyards that just built little bits of the ship, then you brought them altogether in one shipyard. Banged it together and threw it into the sea. But don't be mistaken, it didn't actually take three days to build the ship. It was three days from the last ship rolling off to the next one. Most of the pieces would have already been built.

plan_D said:

The Liberty ship programme was amazing, most of the time taken in construction was bringing all the pieces together. The U.S had the manpower, area and materials to build a ship that quickly. There were so many shipyards that just built little bits of the ship, then you brought them altogether in one shipyard. Banged it together and threw it into the sea. But don't be mistaken, it didn't actually take three days to build the ship. It was three days from the last ship rolling off to the next one. Most of the pieces would have already been built.

Click to expand...

THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS! And Henry Kaiser did the same thing that Sorrenson did at Willow run - the only difference is ships don't change much during construction - engineers are always changing stuff when an aircraft is being produced..

ALSO the Liberty ships were welded - a lot easier to do than riveting. When riveting a ship together if you clench a rivet stem or put an eyebrow on the head, Who Cares! On an aircraft you clench or eyebrow a rivet, you're removing that rivet, a real pain and time-waster!!!!

I think the best way to solve this would be to ask, first off, what are the most important aspects of a World War II bomber?

Numbers lost? Tonnage per plane lost? Tonnage per mission? Range? Ease of build? Survivability? Defensive armament?

All are important, I know but what would you all consider the top three? In some cases one can make up for the other, like survivability against ease of build. If an aircraft isn't too good in the survivability case, the ease of build could make up for it (at least in a country with a lot of people).

Personally, I feel a heavy bomber should be able to drop more per mission, should be able to go a long way. If any are lost, the others should be able to make it up in tonnage and it should lose the least amount of people with every one lost.

This means that any country would be able to have them, a mass of manpower is not required. And each raid is extremely heavy, even with a relatively small amount of bombers.

What are your main points? Then we'll mix and match all the main points, then all the other points will be worth something. And we'll bring up a points system (major points and minor points) then add 'em together to find the best bomber overall (out of Lancaster and B-24)

I will split them into catergories - everyone must pick one from each catergory (note: What I did above was an example and not my full choice);

Defensive (Defensive armament, agility, numbers lost).
Offensive (Tonnage per plane lost, Tonnage per mission, range, payload)
Airframe (Ease of build, versatility [number of roles, in all service life], cost, ease of handling)
Combat (Theatres during War, crew opinions, sorties flown).
Survivability (Strength of airframe, cruise speed, top speed)

Each catergory will have a main choice, the rest will be minor. We'll decide when we've got it all in, who wants what (then they'll be another argument over what's more important).

My choices;

Defensive; Agility (I don't feel defensive armament is any help)
Offensive; Tonnage per sortie (Less bombers for equal tonnage)
Airframe; Ease of handling (Pilots should be able to get into it, and fly it!)
Combat; Crew opinion (What the crew thought of it in combat is just like the bible!)
Survivability; Cruise speed (It wants to be in and out fast)

Remember, all other points will get some points for the plane, just not as many. Now all decide on your major points, then we can argue some more about which are the major points. Oh yeah, and state your reasons so we have something to argue about.

plan_D said:

Personally, I feel a heavy bomber should be able to drop more per mission, should be able to go a long way. If any are lost, the others should be able to make it up in tonnage and it should lose the least amount of people with every one lost.

Click to expand...

Damn, Bomber Harris would be proud of you!!!!!

Heres my first shot at it.

Defensive:
defensive armament - B24
agility - Lanc (although any fighter can out maneuver a bomber)
numbers lost - (I dont know the answer to this one. Lanc flew in the more deadly ETO. B24 flew in the PTO with a different set of operational problems)

Offensive
Tonnage per plane lost - Lanc
Tonnage per mission - Lanc (I discounted B24 maritime patrol and cargo missions)
range - Lanc
payload - Lanc

Airframe
Ease of build - B24
versatility - (Tie)
cost - B24
ease of handling - Lanc

Combat
Theatres during War - B24
crew opinions (unknown for me to rate it right now)
sorties flown - B24 (in all roles related to WW2 missions)

Survivability
Strength of airframe (Tie. B24 has a weaker wing, Lanc has liquid cooled engines and a single pilot)
cruise speed - Lanc
top speed - Lanc

syscom3 said:

Heres my first shot at it.

Defensive:
defensive armament - B24
agility - Lanc (although any fighter can out maneuver a bomber)
numbers lost - (I dont know the answer to this one. Lanc flew in the more deadly ETO. B24 flew in the PTO with a different set of operational problems)

Offensive
Tonnage per plane lost - Lanc
Tonnage per mission - Lanc (I discounted B24 maritime patrol and cargo missions)
range - Lanc
payload - Lanc

Airframe
Ease of build - B24
versatility - (Tie)
cost - B24
ease of handling - Lanc

Combat
Theatres during War - B24
crew opinions (unknown for me to rate it right now)
sorties flown - B24 (in all roles related to WW2 missions)

Survivability
Strength of airframe (Tie. B24 has a weaker wing, Lanc has liquid cooled engines and a single pilot)
cruise speed - Lanc
top speed - Lanc

Click to expand...

Well based on your input the Lanc wins - and ease of production was never proven, what was shown was more B-24s were built in a bigger factory(s) because of more people and resources.....

The Lancaster was super maneuvable for it's size - even on 3 or less engines the Lanc flew well. The 24 was a nice flying aircraft until it lost an engine, then it turned into a turd...

Lets not jump to conclusions so soon.

Each question has a different numerical value.

syscom3 said:

Lets not jump to conclusions so soon.

Each question has a different numerical value.

Click to expand...

Yep and here's 100% where it mattered...

Offensive
Tonnage per plane lost - Lanc
Tonnage per mission - Lanc (I discounted B24 maritime patrol and cargo missions)
range - Lanc
payload - Lanc

I have to agree with you there.

Although the stats would have changed quite a bit if the Lanc had to operate in the PTO.

But you have just agreed that the Lancaster was the better overall bomber. Since the most important aspects of a bomber are it's ability to bomb at long ranges, and carry a lot to bomb with.

If the Lancaster was operating in the PTO, with let's say 10 on one mission. One or two of those Lancasters have to turn back due to engine trouble, the rest will still drop more tonnage if all 10 of the B-24s on the same mission arrived.

Plus, I don't see how the Merlin was unreliable. After all, the Spitfire, Hurricane and Mustang operated in the CBI with the Merlin.

I never said the merlin was unreliable. I said the Merlin is prone prone to damage (as any liquid cooled engine is).

The loss rate goes up because of that, and eventually you have more B24's available to continue the war.

I agree that a liquid cooled engine is prone to battle damage, but the Lancaster could fly on one engine. To knock a Lancaster out of the sky, you have to do more than damage it's engines.

The B-24 numbers would have to be double the Lancaster to make up the tonnage dropped. With ten crew in each B-24, compared to the seven in a Lancaster per one hundred of each, you have 1000 : 700. To make up the tonnage you have 2000 : 700. That's a lot of manpower for that amount of tonnage.

Picture this, a formation of Lancaster's over Burma. It's 50 planes strong, during the day, with escorts from Mustangs. The Japanese planes are weak, they're slow and the Mustangs are more than enough to handle them. If any manage to get in close, the .303cal while weak by European standards would still manage to ignite a Zero or Oscar. The Lancaster hasn't got any problems over the PTO or CBI because it can make up any deficiency by dropping twice the tonnage of the B-24. There doesn't need to be many Lancasters in comparison, and you don't need half the men to do the same task.

Think of the Lancaster as the Royal Navy of the 18th Century. Stationing an army in every colony of the Empire would be impossible. So, Britain had a massive navy that had a lot of men which it could move around the globe. So, instead of having 30,000 people (say 10,000 in each colony, ample for protection) it had 10,000 people in the navy that could defend anywhere with movement.
Well, the Lancaster was like that...instead of having 30,000 people in 3000 bombers that would make sure at least some got through, but wouldn't cause much damage. It wouldn't have the manpower...so, it had a bomber that carried more but used less people. So, what would have been 30,000 people would be 13,000 for the same tonnage ...and the 17,000 could go elsewhere.

and for the last bloody time- the lanc was fitted with radials and was more than capable of being produced on a large scale!

syscom3 said:

Untill someones posts some factory production times, then the B24 wins cause theres data for it.

Click to expand...

Negative all you have proven is the Production Capacity of the US. That has never been disputed. Until you can find in writing that the B-24 was easier to build than the Lancaster, then we do not have to produce anything to counter it. The B-24 was built in more numbers than the P-40 Warhawk, does that mean it was easier to build than a P-40 Warhawk. I don think so.

FLYBOYJ said:

"Instrument. meteorological conditions"

Click to expand...

And that is still the leading cause of crashes and death umong United States Army Helicopters today.

syscom3 said:

Lets not jump to conclusions so soon.

Each question has a different numerical value.

Click to expand...

No based off everything you just said up there, you just proved the Lancaster was better. You are fighting a losing battle.

And since you are so hell bent on Lancaster production figures go to this site right here and it gives it to you.

http://www.lancaster-archive.com/Plant_Orders.htm

I went ahead and tallied it up and this is what I came up with. All of of the Lancaster production facilities together averaged 288 Lancasters a week. That comes down to 41 Lancasters a day. So which were produced faster.

This to me is still not an indication of which was easier to build. So basically you have proved nothing.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

And since you are so hell bent on Lancaster production figures go to this site right here and it gives it to you.

http://www.lancaster-archive.com/Plant_Orders.htm

I went ahead and tallied it up and this is what I came up with. All of of the Lancaster production facilities together averaged 288 Lancasters a week. That comes down to 41 Lancasters a day. So which were produced faster.

This to me is still not an indication of which was easier to build. So basically you have proved nothing.

Click to expand...

Great Site Adler! Yep all that was proven that several huge plants pumped out B-24s like they were Fords, set up facilities so JIT (Just In Time) production methods can be utilized, dumped a bunch a people on these lines to make the impossible happen, and somewhat compromised quality for quantity. I'll state again, any aircraft could of been subject to this scenario, the B-24 production line just had the distinction of being one of the first mass produced items subjected to this type of production methodology which has become very popular today. Bottom line the B-24 was no more or no less difficult to build than a B-17, Lancaster, Halifax or C-47....

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

And since you are so hell bent on Lancaster production figures go to this site right here and it gives it to you.

http://www.lancaster-archive.com/Plant_Orders.htm

I went ahead and tallied it up and this is what I came up with. All of of the Lancaster production facilities together averaged 288 Lancasters a week. That comes down to 41 Lancasters a day. So which were produced faster.

This to me is still not an indication of which was easier to build. So basically you have proved nothing.

Click to expand...

I looked at that link and it had data for average construction per week and it was only in the "teens". Best was "A.V. Roe Co. Ltd., Newton Heath, Manchester." which had a best of 25 per WEEK, (from 11/42 through 6/43. This was followed up by 21 per WEEK (from 6/43 to 12/43).

Hmmmmm........ werent the US plants building that many per day?

How come the Canadian plant was only averaging 4 per week?

And if its one thing I've proven, is surprisingly, the Lancaster experts here hadnt thought of this point.

syscom3 said:

How come the Canadian plant was only averaging 4 per week?

Click to expand...

That's all they might of been contracted to produce.....