Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

[Nonskimmer]

Not sure really. I know the first Canadian built Lanc rolled out of the plant in September 1943, and all of the ones built here were Mk.X's, which supposedly went exclusively to No. 6 (Canadian) Bomber Group. The Mk.X was also a bit heavier than previous marks, so that coupled with the relative inexperience of the Canadian production team upon starting up...Who knows? Just a guess.

But they were well built, you can be sure.

 

[syscom3]

I thought that Lancs were needed everywhere. Wasnt this plant in location that couldnt be bombed?

 

[Nonskimmer]

Malton, Ontario. As safe as could be.

 

[Erich]

thought I would go with something different as you all discuss the B-24 vs the Lanc prodcuton et al

B-25, how's that ? 8)

 

[syscom3]

According to this official AAF document, here is the production totals for B24's during the best 4 months of production.

Sustained production from March - June 1944, factory acceptances = 3731.

if we average it out at 16 weeks, then its 233 per week.

or if we average it out on a daily basis (122 days), then its 30.6.

Now does anyone have a similar chart for the Lanc?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

Adler already posted this

 

[syscom3]

Forgot to add the Link.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t076.pdf

 

[syscom3]

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.

Adler already posted this

The link doesnt list the monthly production totals. If there is a link on it that does, its not apparent for me.

So far all we know about the Lanc is there were several factories building them and what the average weekly production rate was. I would like to see the best four months production of the Lanc. and compare it to the B24.

You can play around with the numbers to prove or disprove anything, so lets keep it consistant. I listed four months production and gave you two numbers, one for 16 weeks and one for 122 days. Compare your numbers to that.

 

[syscom3]

thought I would go with something different as you all discuss the B-24 vs the Lanc prodcuton et al

B-25, how's that ? 8)

We can start a whole thread on aircraft production rates for all combatants. I wouldnt be surprised that the Luftwaffee turned in some impressive numbers for the fighters.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

ok, so you want the best 4 months?? i'm working from a book so this'll take a bit of addition on my part, so far as i can tell (i may be wrong) that'd be June- September 1944

June- 263
July- 276
August- 273
September- 281

that's 1093 bombers in 4 months, that's 68 a week, that's 10 a day (rounding off), that's with 29,600 employees, willow run alone emplyed over 42,000

 

[FLYBOYJ]

thought I would go with something different as you all discuss the B-24 vs the Lanc prodcuton et al

B-25, how's that ? 8)

We can start a whole thread on aircraft production rates for all combatants. I wouldnt be surprised that the Luftwaffee turned in some impressive numbers for the fighters.

Ask your self this too - How many MORE people were employed on B-24 construction? We had the people and resources under a peacetime environment, the Brits didn't and it seems the Lanc built in Canada went to their squadrons. Production numbers don't mean much if you're production force is 3x larger than what you're comparing to...

I think the only things shown here were...

1. The Lancaster was no harder or easier to build than the B-24.

2. The B-24 achieved its production numbers based on a huge workforce that used Automotive Type production lines that sometimes compromised quantity for quality.

3. All B-24 production facilities had manufacturing problems documented to the point that they came up on several occasions during texts posted here, the worse in my opinion being the lack of component interchangeability, a major issue if you're an aircraft maintainer.

4. The Lancaster, despite being built under "Wartime Conditions" posted impressive production numbers and really didn't go into full scale production until the spring of 1942.

5. The only fact that came out of this was there were more B-24s built than Lancasters. This had nothing to do with ease of manufacture but rather resources, methods and manpower. Any other aircraft could of been manufactured at the same rate if produced under the same conditions....

 

[syscom3]

Ask your self this too - How many MORE people were employed on B-24 construction? We had the people and resources under a peacetime environment, the Brits didn't and it seems the Lanc built in Canada went to their squadrons. Production numbers don't mean much if you're production force is 3x larger than what you're comparing to...

I think the only things shown here were...

1. The Lancaster was no harder or easier to build than the B-24.

Still hasnt been proven or disproven. An aircraft thats easy to build is one that lends itself well to mass production.

2. The B-24 achieved its production numbers based on a huge workforce that used Automotive Type production lines that sometimes compromised quantity for quality.

B24 gets points for being mass produced in suck quantities, the quality issue was nearly irrelevant. Remember those stories of how the FEAF in 1945 was told not to make any major repairs to heavily damaged B24's as a new one would be assigned?

3. All B-24 production facilities had manufacturing problems documented to the point that they came up on several occasions during texts posted here, the worse in my opinion being the lack of component interchangeability, a major issue if you're an aircraft maintainer.

Agreed. Fortunatly it didnt impact the deployment or availability of the planes once the logistical pipeline as opened up and hordes of mechanics could fix them as needed.

4. The Lancaster, despite being built under "Wartime Conditions" posted impressive production numbers and really didn't go into full scale production until the spring of 1942.

Why werent the Canadians involved earlier to build the planes under peacetime conditions?

5. The only fact that came out of this was there were more B-24s built than Lancasters. This had nothing to do with ease of manufacture but rather resources, methods and manpower. Any other aircraft could of been manufactured at the same rate if produced under the same conditions....

OK, for the sake of your argument, B24 and Lanc are tied for ease of manufacture. B24 gets points for being built far in excess of the Lanc.

 

[Nonskimmer]

Why werent the Canadians involved earlier to build the planes under peacetime conditions?

They were approached about it around the same time that it first went into full production in Britain, in mid 1942. It took almost a year to set things up at the Victory Aircraft Plant in Malton before the ball got rolling production wise. As it turned out, they all went to RCAF squadrons anyway by the look of it.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Still hasnt been proven or disproven. An aircraft thats easy to build is one that lends itself well to mass production.

Agree, and it seems the only information found herein were problems with B-24 production

2. The B-24 achieved its production numbers based on a huge workforce that used Automotive Type production lines that sometimes compromised quantity for quality.

B24 gets points for being mass produced in suck quantities, the quality issue was nearly irrelevant. Remember those stories of how the FEAF in 1945 was told not to make any major repairs to heavily damaged B24's as a new one would be assigned?

There had to be 5 mod centers to "finish" B-24s due to factory deficiencies, I'd say that's a big quality problem..

Why werent the Canadians involved earlier to build the planes under peacetime conditions?

Probably because of lack of people, Canada's 1943 population was 11,795,000, I would guess a good portion of the male population was in the military. Additionally companies weren't forced to build large aircraft during the war, if a company had no experience in building large aircraft, they probably won't bid on the contract because of risk. If you look at aircraft built in Canada during WW2 with the exception of the Lancaster, they seem more tailored for a smaller easier trained workforce (Mosquito, Harvard, Anson, Defiant, Helldiver, and Hurricane)

5. The only fact that came out of this was there were more B-24s built than Lancasters. This had nothing to do with ease of manufacture but rather resources, methods and manpower. Any other aircraft could of been manufactured at the same rate if produced under the same conditions....

OK, for the sake of your argument, B24 and Lanc are tied for ease of manufacture. B24 gets points for being built far in excess of the Lanc.

I could agree with that except the B-24 production workforce was way greater than the Lancaster workforce and they didn't have the benefit of a "production line" custom built factory.

 

[syscom3]

The workman (and woman) who manned the factories whether in Canada or the US, both had the same set of skills when it came to factory work.... namely nothing.

And the B24 quality problems were manageable. If it werent, then the AAF would have shut down the lines. And if a plane has to go to a mod center to receive GFE anyway, and the quality issues could be corrected at the same time, then no harm, no foul.

And if the brits asked for the US to help set up a factory in Canada with production methods like the US was going to use, then maybe the Lanc would see the same production results.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The workman (and woman) who manned the factories whether in Canada or the US, both had the same set of skills when it came to factory work.... namely nothing.

unless they were already employed in the aviation business they had to trained from ground up - agreed

And the B24 quality problems were manageable. If it werent, then the AAF would have shut down the lines. And if a plane has to go to a mod center to receive GFE anyway, and the quality issues could be corrected at the same time, then no harm, no foul.

WRONG - during the war (and even today) there were completion clauses in the contracts between aircraft manufacturers and the government where if you didn't complete a unit on time or if a Product Deficiency Report (PDR) was written against a unit, progress payments were held up or payment was reduced by a pre-determined amount. There were government contract adminstrators on site overseeing this at all times.

And if the brits asked for the US to help set up a factory in Canada with production methods like the US was going to use, then maybe the Lanc would see the same production results.

Perhaps, but for what ever reasons, they didn't...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Syscom have you ever thought that the British and Canadian factories were not the same size as the US ones? They did not have the producion capacity to build the amounts that the US did. So again your argument still does not hold up.

You also said these things:

Still hasnt been proven or disproven.

Yeap and you have not proven it, so you can not say it was easier to build. Until you prove it, and the only way you can do so, is to find someone who built both aircraft who can say which one was easier. You are not going to find that. Therefore this argument is thrown out.

B24 gets points for being built far in excess of the Lanc.

And that proves what?

 

[Nonskimmer]

Well just speaking from the Canadian perspective for a moment, FBJ made a good point about the population of this country at the time. It was very small, and as with the other nations involved, with most of the men either off fighting in the war or involved with the various training programs underway, much of the hastily erected production set-up was manned by inexperienced labourers. Realistically, try as we might, Canada's production capacity could never have hoped to reach the level of the United States or even Great Britain. Remember as well that the Canadian military was still building up almost from scratch, so a lot of the time we naturally tended to focus on our own forces needs first. But as Canadian assets were usually mixed into the greater overall Commonwealth force anyway (such as with No.6 Group, Bomber Command), that point is really rather moot.

As it was, when it came to aircraft production we largely stuck to smaller designs like the Hurricanes, Ansons, Mosquitos, etc., as FBJ mentioned. Obvious exceptions being the Lancasters and Cansos (Canadian built Catalina PBY).

 

[wmaxt]

FLYBOYJ,

Often Production lines raise quality because of the consistency required to repeat an operation hundreds of times in a row. Many/all aircraft manufacturers had "MOD" centers, not only did they correct deficencies, often they were used as final finishing, and even more often they were used to upgrade the production to the newest or desired version. Todays auto plants use a two week window at Christmas and the 4th of July to do running model changovers, things like grills and trim, more extensive changes may take several months these downtimes were not acceptable in war time except for extream cases. Durring the war they used the "MOD" centers for this. Do know how many were dedicated to quality problems?

wmaxt

 

[FLYBOYJ]

WeObvious exceptions being the Lancasters and Cansos (Canadian built Catalina PBY).

Ah! Forgot the ole Canso!

FLYBOYJ,

Often Production lines raise quality because of the consistency required to repeat an operation hundreds of times in a row. Many/all aircraft manufacturers had "MOD" centers, not only did they correct deficiencies, often they were used as final finishing, and even more often they were used to upgrade the production to the newest or desired version. Today's auto plants use a two week window at Christmas and the 4th of July to do running model changovers, things like grills and trim, more extensive changes may take several months these downtimes were not acceptable in war time except for extream cases. Durring the war they used the "MOD" centers for this. Do know how many were dedicated to quality problems?

wmaxt

I could tell you that not being able to incorporate a "MOD" be it manufacturing, engineering or by customer request today AND during WW2 during aircraft production is the biggest cardinal sin any aircraft manufacturer can make, I've confirmed that with folks I worked with at Lockheed who were on the B-17 (Vega) and P-38 production lines and I've had this discussion before with WW2 era employees from Douglas and Northrop. When I worked the P-3 assembly line I was told by my then supervisor that the paperwork format being used was almost identical to the format used in the later part of WW2. While true some mods were done at MOD Centers, this action was usually to install GFE (Government Furnished Equipment) or to incorporate customer driven modifications NEGOTIATED to be accomplished outside the origin of manufacture. There were and still are contract clauses that mandate full completion of product at time of delivery and if this wasn't met you either had payments with held until the mod was complete or you had to give money back to the government, something that even during WW2 I know any aircraft manufacturer didn't want to do. The case with Consolidated on the B-24 was due to a rapidly moving assembly line (like you see at an auto plant) which resulted in mods not being able to be accomplished. It was a matter of "damned the torpedoes, keep moving." Even today aircraft manufacturers can be placed in that situation, but if the mod incorporation process is not completed at the factory, all you're doing is buying time for a non-completion penalty....

You cannot compare automotive production to aircraft in as much you don't have a continual movement of the "line" and when mods are incorporated, many facets of the production environment are involved (engineering, manufacturing, QA and finally the customer in the form of a government representative, either a civilian employee or an actual member of the branch of the military procuring the aircraft). Sometimes a simple mod that might change an electrical junction box may take weeks to do because of the paperwork and the approval process involved in building an airplane. If cars were built under the same stringent "manufacturing bureaucracy" as aircraft (especially military aircraft), the cheapest cars would cost $50,000 and take 3x as long to build....

I do know that the biggest dedicated quality problems found on aircraft during WW2 were fuel tank leaks, various electrical problems (which can always happen) and interchangeability problems (which is more of a manufacturing engineering problem than a quality problem).

In my opinion the only way you could crank out aircraft in an "automotive style" type of production environment is to build an aircraft with a "frozen" design so no mods need to be incorporated, have a highly skilled workforce available so minimal production line deficiencies are encountered or minimizing the deficiency risk by designing the aircraft to be "manufacturing" friendly or a combination of all of the above - something that Consolidated might of accomplished by war's end....