Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

[plan_D]

One an hour is a bit different from one every two and a half years. So, in conclusion, the B-24 was no easier to build than the Lancaster. Therefore, syscoms argument to the contrary is null and void.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

as are many of his arguments, including the one about the B-24 being better because it saw service in every theatre, yes it's an advantage, but it doesn't make it better, afterall no one would argue the B-29 was the best heavy bomber of the war, yet it only saw service over the pacific during the war, hey sys, using your logic therefore doesn't that make the B-17 and B-24 better than the B-29??

 

[plan_D]

I don't recall the B-24 actively seeing service over Russia. Although, it's possible they flew into Russia on the triangle bombing runs. But I'm pretty sure Lancasters did that too, which would make that point extremely blunt.

The only place the B-24 considerable service that the Lancaster didn't was in the PTO. But post-war service of the Lancaster proved that it could serve in the weather conditions, and Japanese anti-air defences and interceptors were inferior to those of Germany. So, the combat conditions would be better for the Lancaster rather than worse.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

well in bombing the tirpitz the russians, very reluctantly, let lancs fly from a base in russia, annother, very small, feather in the lanc's cap but then again the destruction of one of the world's most powerful battleships would be an even bigger feather

 

[plan_D]

I consider the fact that the Lancaster proved it could fly in the adverse weather conditions of Russia more of an achievement than destroying the Tirpitz. After all, the Tirpitz was no special target for a Lancaster crew. It was a large target, and plenty of Lancasters were in the sky armed with Tallboy bombs. Basically, it was just like bombing anything else only this target was floating. Did the Tirpitz even take any evasive?

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

no, she was always moored, but they did put up VERY heavy smoke screens, actually the final raid that flipper her over wasn't nessisary, a previous raid had caused enough damage to render her unseaworthy, they were essentailly just planning on using her as a floating gun barrage from that point, they weren't planning to put her out to sea again..........

 

[plan_D]

It was just like bombing a building then. It's not really a momentous achievement in my book, sorry. If Germany was planning on using it as a shore battery, the final attack definately was needed. Take into account the devestating effect the Prinz Eugen had on advancing Soviet troops around Konigsberg. And that was only a cruiser.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i wouldn't call her an easy target exactily, the tallboy was an extremely accurate bomb in her own right but if you miss a building, the earthquake effect of the bomb is still likely to bring it down, you miss a ship that's it, you have to get a dead hit...........

 

[DaveB.inVa]

Heres a good writeup of the sinking http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/tirpitz.html

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Both Squadrons lay claim to the fact that it was their bombs that actually sunk the Tirpitz, and the bulkhead has been 'owned' by both squadrons over the years and continued to be the centre of inter-squadron rivalry until 2002

believe me that's aan understatement

 

[syscom3]

as are many of his arguments, including the one about the B-24 being better because it saw service in every theatre, yes it's an advantage, but it doesn't make it better, afterall no one would argue the B-29 was the best heavy bomber of the war, yet it only saw service over the pacific during the war, hey sys, using your logic therefore doesn't that make the B-17 and B-24 better than the B-29??

Not at all. The B29 was a generational leap over the B17/B24/Lanc. There was not one catagory that those three had that was superior to the B29.
The B29 didnt fly in Europe because there was no compelling reason to deploy it in Europe. The long ranges in the PTO dictated long range bombers. The Me262 didnt fly in the PTO but that still makes it the best jet fighter of the war.

The B24 and Lanc were similar. One flew in only one theater of the war. the other flew in all theaters of the war. (hmmm, come to think of it, the Lanc didnt fly in the Aleutions.... I wonder if it would have had coolant leak problems from operating in arctic operations?)

 

[syscom3]

One an hour is a bit different from one every two and a half years. So, in conclusion, the B-24 was no easier to build than the Lancaster. Therefore, syscoms argument to the contrary is null and void.

The B24 gets points because it was built in vastly higher numbers than the Lanc. Heavy bombers are systems. There are many facets to what makes a bomber good, and one of them is how many are built.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

One an hour is a bit different from one every two and a half years. So, in conclusion, the B-24 was no easier to build than the Lancaster. Therefore, syscoms argument to the contrary is null and void.

The B24 gets points because it was built in vastly higher numbers than the Lanc. Heavy bombers are systems. There are many facets to what makes a bomber good, and one of them is how many are built.

NO NO NO NO FOR THE LAST TIME. NUMBERS DOES NOT MAKE AN AIRCRAFT BETTER THAN ONE THAT WAS BUILT IN SMALLER NUMBERS.
Examples:

1. The Fw-190 was built in smaller numbers than the Bf-109. Does that make the Bf-109 better than the Fw-190? No the Fw-190 was better.

2. The B-29 was built in smaller numbers than the B-24. Does that make the B-24 better than the B-29. NO!

This argument of yours holds no weight. Give it up NOW!

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i could go outside and build thousands of tiny homes for mice out of cow shit, i could make one ever minute too, does that mean they're any better than real homes made of mud bricks? of course not..............

and you've stated previously that the B-24 was the better bomber because she flew in all theatres, doesn't this make you a hypocrit?

the Lanc didnt fly in the Aleutions

i wonder if flying over the north pole can be seen as being the same conditions

hmmm, come to think of it, the Lanc didnt fly in the Aleutions.... I wonder if it would have had coolant leak problems from operating in arctic operations?)

i'm sorry did you not read up on the lancaster before joining this argument? from yuor lack of knowledge of the Mk.II i'd guess not, but if you had you might've come across a varient called the Mk.10 AR, do you wanna know what the AR stands for? Arctic Reconnaissance, yes, a whole varient dedicated to flying over the arctic below is a picture of a Mk.10 MP or MR parked up in freezing cold canada..............

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

There will be some rebutle, because based off of his arguments the B-24 is better than the B-29 because the B-29 did not fly in all theatres of the war.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

not also the crew access ladder, lancaster crews didn't have to enter the craft through the bomb bay

 

[syscom3]

Did the lanc perform combat missions in the arctic during the WW2 years?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Did the lanc perform combat missions in the arctic during the WW2 years?

If they operated any of them in Winnipeg during the winter in the post war years, they might of well been in the Artic..

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

no, just the frozen north russia during the war, don't tell me, the fact the lanc flew over the arctic is void because she didn't do it 'til post war would it help if i said the Mk.10 ARs, the entire varient for flying over the arctic (was there one of them for the B-24?), were modified from wartime airframes?

 

[Nonskimmer]

...the Mk.10 ARs...were modified from wartime airframes...

The most extensive modification to the airframe was that the nose was extended 40 inches to accommodate a nav/weather radar and camera system in the old bomb aimer's position. She also had a UPD search radar installed abaft of the bomb bay.

Only three AR's were ever converted, and all were from ex-WWII airframes.