the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
yes i know, but they were still dedicated Artctic Recon. aircraft, i bought them up because syscom said they never flew over the Aleutions, i'm under the impression the arctic's worse 
Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3
- Thread starter DerAdlerIstGelandet
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
Nonskimmer
Captain
It don't get much colder than that. Pretty harsh too. My dad worked out of CFS Alert off and on, years ago. That's waaaaaaay up north. Pretty damn cold.
By the way, AR actually stood for Area Reconnaissance, not Arctic Reconnaissance. I screw it up all the time too.
They were made specifically for Arctic surveillance though.
By the way, AR actually stood for Area Reconnaissance, not Arctic Reconnaissance. I screw it up all the time too.
They were made specifically for Arctic surveillance though.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
odd, Harry Holmes, one of the world's leading authorities on the lancaster says it's arctic, what's your source?
Nonskimmer
Captain
My only sources are my grandfather, my father, and some old fellas who worked at RCAF Greenwood back in the 50's. We spoke about Lancasters just last week while I was up visiting grandad. It's a common mistake though, and even some of the old aircrews called 'em Arctic Recon apparently.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
mmm odd, on that baisis i'd think either was acceptable? perhaps they started out as one and changed to the other later?
Nonskimmer
Captain
No, I don't think so. I'm sure it was always Area Reconnaissance. Since they always flew over the Arctic though, it's easy to see how it would become mixed up. I don't think it was exactly considered a big deal or anything. Like I said, even the crews did it.
Nonskimmer
Captain
Here's at least one internet source that confirms it:
Just scroll down to the Mk.10AR.
http://acam.ednet.ns.ca/newslet/mar2003/mkx.htm
Just scroll down to the Mk.10AR.
http://acam.ednet.ns.ca/newslet/mar2003/mkx.htm
syscom3
Pacific Historian
But did the Lancs perform extensive arctic operations between 1942 and 1945?
Nonskimmer
Captain
Not that I know of.
No but just because it didn't do it during WW2 doesn't mean it couldn't do it, plus there was no real need to go and do Arctic recon during WW2 as it is all ice and snow. As Lanc the ones that did the recon were converted WW2 airframes. Your arguments mean nothing syscom and they are just annoying people now. The Lancaster could do everything the B-24 could do and more, end of story. Both were good bombers easily in the top 5 of the war, but the Lanc is still better than the B-24 in my opinion and hence the 2nd best bomber of WW2 with the B-24 in 4th behind the B-17.
Nonskimmer
Captain
Also according to that link I gave, the Mk.10AR in fact carried two pilots, and I'd forgotten about the Mk.10P variant. It also flew extensively up north.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Gnomey said:
You hate it when I come up with these points dont you. Like I said before, you cant ignore the details.
See, the B24 performed combat missions in the arctic for three years, while the Lanc didnt. Whether the lanc could do it is simple conjecture.
In your opinion the Lanc was better, but it isnt universally shared. And there were roles the Lanc could do that the B24 couldn't do, and there were roles the B24 could do that the Lanc couldnt.
Its still a tie. And for one thing, its far better than the B17.
Nonskimmer
Captain
Not so. As you've seen, the Lanc flew Arctic ops for years. Throw in some flak and fighters and there's your combat conditions. What's conjectural about it? That it could operate in the extreme cold? Perform as a bomber? Return from a mission? We know it could do all of these things. There's no doubt of it, so calling it conjecture is pointess really.syscom3 said:
You know, I can make conjecture that the sun will rise in the morning, but I'm fairly certain that it will.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The Lanc never had a combat mission in the arctic with flak and fighters.
B24 did.
B24 did.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
syscom3 said:
If you're talking about the Aleutians, the weather was more a problem than fighters and flack. It proves nothing, the Lancaster was operated extensively at night - proves nothing.
If your trying to say the B-24 was a better cold weather aircraft, again you're going no where unless you could show the B-24 had skis installed, something I think the Lancaster didn't.
BUT - if you really want to examine somthing - look at the post war longivity of both aircraft. The B-24 was replaced rather rapidly in the post war years, the Lancaster remained in service well into the 1950s and that includes the C-87 models.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The two pilot cockpit setup would have been safer for continuous operations in those weather conditions.
And who cares what it did after the war. It was designed as a bomber for the WW2 years. Anything it did after the war meant it was inferior to the specialized aircraft that were available.
Its still a tie between the Lanc and the B24
And who cares what it did after the war. It was designed as a bomber for the WW2 years. Anything it did after the war meant it was inferior to the specialized aircraft that were available.
Its still a tie between the Lanc and the B24
Nonskimmer
Captain
So?syscom3 said:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
syscom3 said:
That I agree
syscom3 said:
No it means that it was capable of taking up an additional role - case in point, the Lockheed P2 Neptune was supposed to be in service if the war would of went on longer. Instead a basic WW2 concept served 30 years with the US Navy and even longer with other nations.
As much as I like the B-24, the Lancaster was a far better aircraft
Nonskimmer
Captain
In Canada's case, it meant making economical use of a readily adaptable aircraft that was already available in quantity. The thing filled multiple roles nicely enough that we were able to use it for several years after the war. No, it's not because the Canadian government was cheap (unlike today ), it's because it made good sense all around at the time. We had several Lancasters surplus after the war, and we used as many of them as we needed to fulfill post-war operational requirements. They were modified as required, and they worked well enough in the time that they were used. The AR and P variants were the last ones retired, in the early 60's.
), it's because it made good sense all around at the time. We had several Lancasters surplus after the war, and we used as many of them as we needed to fulfill post-war operational requirements. They were modified as required, and they worked well enough in the time that they were used. The AR and P variants were the last ones retired, in the early 60's.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The B-24 disappeared overnight - the B-17, Lancaster, B-25 and A(B)-26 soldiered on for years in minor roles.
- Status
