Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

Slower speed = longer in the danger area
Lower altitude = bigger danger to flak
Weak wing
Inability to carry the most effective bombs around (It is mainly a bomber isn't it?)
Surely your not still claiming you can build one in an hour, I thought even you gave up on that one.

syscom3 said:

I will repeat it for you.

Better defensive firepower
Radial engines that didnt have radiators that could be shot out
Two man cockpit
Better production record
Flew in more theaters

All these offset the Lancs better range and payload, so its still a tie.

Click to expand...

Oh, no need to repeat yourself again, I saw it all the first dozen times or so. It all stacks up against the post-war multiple roles of the Lancaster, which are entirely relevant to the comparison. It was a highly versatile aircraft. At least as versatile as the B-24. The fact that it was after the war doesn't disqualify it's versatility. She was a superb wartime heavy bomber too, as has been demonstrated over and over...and over, and over...

Lancaster = Longevity

Lancaster = More avionics and electronic navigation

The Lancaster had a very advanced communications system for its time; the famous 1155 receiver and 1154 transmitter. These provided radio direction-finding, as well as voice and Morse capabilities. Later Lancasters carried:

- H2S - Ground looking navigation radar system - though it could be homed on by German night fighters' NAXOS receiver and had to be used with discretion.

- Monica - a rearward looking radar to warn of night fighter approaches - a notable disaster, transmitting constant warnings of bombers in the same formation it was ignored by crews and instead served as a homing beacon for suitably equipped German night fighters.

- Fishpond - an add-on to H2S that provided additional (aerial) coverage of the underside of the aircraft to display attacking fighters on the main H2S screen.

- Gee - A receiver for a navigation system of synchronized pulses transmitted from the UK - aircraft calculated their position from the phase shift between pulses. The range of GEE was 3-400 miles.

- Oboe (navigation) - another receiver for two radar stations transmitting from the UK - one determining range and the other the bearing on the range. As the system could only handle one aircraft at a time it was only fitted to Pathfinder aircraft which marked the target for the main force.

Village Inn - A radar-aimed gun turret fitted to some Lancasters in 1944.

B-24 (either one or two of these)

ASV Mark II radar
Airborne Surface Vessel Detection ten millimeter (ASV-10) radar
Radar Altimeter
LORAN
Magnetinc Adnomally Detectors
Sono Bouys
SIGINT
H2X (American H2S)
I know there were some used in 100 group probably fitted with Mickey equipment as well.

Although the B-24 performed very well as an ASW platform, the Lancaster carried probably the most advanced electronic suite developed by the allies and they did so on a consistent basis.


Better production record? Yes more B-24s were built but all that did was show numbers. At the end of of 1945 6,000 B-24s were in the USAAF, within 11 months they were all gone! We showed the B-24 still took 17,000+ man-hours to build, we showed other bombers close to that in man-hour production time - THE REAL INDICATOR OF MANUFACTURING TIME!!! I give the B-24 credit for the production numbers achieved but the fact the Lancaster carried more bombs, dropped more bombs, carried more electronic equipment, used that equipment CONSISTENTLY through-out the war and remained in service almost 19 years after the war ended shows me it indeed was the better aircraft....

The fact that the Lanc remained in service for 19 years is more an indication that the Brits were desperate for any airframe to use for whatever. So what if the B24 was scrapped within a year of the end of the war? Absolutley no use for it with B29's, C54's, and the USN wanted its own dedicated maritime patrol aircraft.

Some of the electronics were more for night bombing use and wouldnt be of use for daytime use. Oboe was of use in the ETO for its shorter ranges, but of no use in the PTO with its longer ranges.

Once again, it wasn't desperation. The Lancaster was well suited for the jobs it performed. Yes, it soon became outdated even in most of it's post-war roles, and I can only comment on it's Canadian service, but it filled the gap quite nicely. Budgetary considerations were important in the Canadian military even in those days, but if the Lanc couldn't have adequately performed in the roles it was assigned it would have been replaced more quickly than it was. The RCAF of old was taken seriously enough in the 50's that if it had have been considered useless, it would have been scrapped much sooner.

The fact that the UK was almost bankrupt at the end of the ww2 in fact the Uk had rationing for a number of years after the war would mean that the Lancaster as a excellent airframe with the ability to adapt to many roles made it a natural to continue to labour it was cost effective for the time on much in the same manner as the B52 labours on today

What about the Lincoln and Shackleton?

Avro and subsidaries built 550 Lincolns, which began service in August 1945. The Lans didn't continue in the bomber role because the Lincon was there to take up the slack until the first jet bombers (Canberras, Valiants) arrived.

syscom3 said:

The fact that the Lanc remained in service for 19 years is more an indication that the Brits were desperate for any airframe to use for whatever. So what if the B24 was scrapped within a year of the end of the war? Absolutely no use for it with B29's, C54's, and the USN wanted its own dedicated maritime patrol aircraft.

Click to expand...

Get ready, here it comes, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!
It was scrapped because it was considered the "dump truck" of the bomber fleet. While serving well and faithfully, it had no role, not even in a secondary capacity by any of the services as other aircraft were favored over it. Shoot, the Navy made drones out of the B-17 while the B-24 was being turned into Studabakers!!! The C-54 was a far superior aircraft if you're talking about a transport and was specifically designed for that purpose, the -24 (or C-87) couldn't come close!!! The only remote use of the B-24 after the war was the Privateer, and the only reason why those were kept was because they already had the surface search radar, MAD equipment and later Julie Jezebel equipment which made if perfect for performing ASW duty against the now growing Soviet submarine fleet, and even those didn't last too long when the P2, and P5 came on the scene...

syscom3 said:

Some of the electronics were more for night bombing use and wouldn't be of use for daytime use. Oboe was of use in the ETO for its shorter ranges, but of no use in the PTO with its longer ranges.

Click to expand...

Wana bet?!? The same radars mentioned were able to "paint" land and surface features, easily used for navigation. Oboe could of (and would of) been used if the Lanc would of saw service in the PTO, especially if the Japanese mainland would of been over run, and in French Indo China as that would of been over run, BUT could of would of should of...

The fact remains a truly great aircraft is judged by its combat record, its ability to achieve its mission, its ability to be adaptable and grow and finally longevity. The fact that the Lanc remained in service for 19 years had nothing to do with the Brits being "desperate" as it was never used in a primary bombardment role in the post war years and actually supplemented the Lincolns, Washingtons and eventually the Canberra and it wasn't until the V bombers came on scene that the Lanc settled into the sunset. No you're dead wrong, longevity is a major factor in achieving aviation greatness (just look at the B-52) it it was the Lancaster that showed it was a superior aircraft by lasting as long as it did.....

My only fault of this aircraft was the lack of a co-pilot, but that was discussed 20 pages ago.

I'm talking about the fact that it was used as an airliner ,asw, test bed for engines ,and many other tasks which lanc has probably elaborated on. it short it was a great and adaptable airframe and I'm given to believe the Shackleton and lincoln were outgrowths of the original Chadwick design

They were indeed.

Agreed FBJ, well said.

Man syscom is giving me a fucking headache with this crap. Mostly because he thinks he is proving something but he is not. And the repeating crap over and over that does not prove anything is just as bad.

Sorry if the facts interfere with your idea's.

Ive more than proven that its a dead on tie between the two.

Every advantage the Lanc has is offset by an advantage the B24 has.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Man syscom is giving me a f*cking headache with this crap. Mostly because he thinks he is proving something but he is not. And the repeating crap over and over that does not prove anything is just as bad.

Click to expand...

Like I said: Like beating your head off a wall.
Try some Aspirin.

syscom3 said:

Every advantage the Lanc has is offset by an advantage the B24 has.

Click to expand...

You haven't proven anything, I think it's evident in the vote on the other thread. The Lancaster; longevity-wise, technically, operationally, and adaptability was and is more superior to the B-24. The B-24 gets credit for defensive firepower and logistics. Although the Lancaster lacked a co-pilot, the B-24 was shown to be hazardous with regards to features inherent in its hasty design (its fuel system). I have no doubts about the B-24s performance during the war, but as stated it was a dump truck, served well and quickly retired. There were thousands rapidly scrapped after the war, if they were considered that valuable of an asset they would of quickly found use in other roles (or with many other airforces) and this has nothing to do with the advent of the B-29 or jet aircraft. Face it, it was a dump truck, well used and abused, and quickly disposed of!!!

I will repeat it for you.

Better defensive firepower
Radial engines that didnt have radiators that could be shot out
Two man cockpit
Better production record
Flew in more theaters

Click to expand...

that's the best list of advantages you can come up with, some of those barely count as advantages

All these offset the Lancs better range and payload, so its still a tie.

Click to expand...

yeah and if that's true the girl of my dreams is about to walk through the door and give me a blowjob

anywho, your "advantage" of the B-24 having radials is all but offset by the fact the lanc had radials too...........

syscom 3 said:

The B24 was designed for one thing, and thats to drop bombs

Click to expand...

you remember saying that? well i said i've proved this, which i can do again, if i pro the lanc was better than the B-24 in the roles they were designed for will you give up? because the lancaster dropped more tonnage, carried more per sortie and dropped more per aircraft lost, to me that says the lancaster was better at dropping bombs..........

so, let's simulate the B-24 dropping the same tonnage as the lancaster, 710,081 tons!

so, using my figures the B-24 carried about 2 tons per sortie, that means the B-24 would have to do 355,040 sorties! with the B-24's loss rate at 1.6, in order to have dropped an equal tonnage to the lancaster, 5,681 B-24s would be lost, only 3,433 lancasters were lost, me thinks that the lancaster is better on this evidence?

So let's look at the lancaster's advantages, which are all solid fact

payload
manoeuvrability
cruising speed
payload to range
total tonnage
tonnage per sortie
tonnage per aircraft lost
range of weapons carried, including the ability to carry bombs larger than 2,000lbs

I've left off versatility because you have yet to conceded on that point, if you ask me the lanc's advantages far outweigh the B-24's, and, one final thing, no amount of defensive armourment will save you on a un-escorted daylight bombing raid on germany so don't say that the B-24 could, because you know as well as I do and as well as everyone on the boards here, the only way you can bomb with a heavy by day is with total air superiority or a roaming escort, losses suffered by the Americans were so bad at one point they were going to knock the daylight bombing on the head, the Lancaster would've been just as good with escort

that's the best list of advantages you can come up with, some of those barely count as advantages

Click to expand...

They some are important, some are not. Just like your lists.

yeah and if that's true the girl of my dreams is about to walk through the door and give me a blowjob

Click to expand...

Sorry to hear you cant get a blow job.

anywho, your "advantage" of the B-24 having radials is all but offset by the fact the lanc had radials too...........

Click to expand...

I gave it some thought and since only 300 or so were built out of 7700 total Lancs, the percentages was to low to be meaningfull. Plus if it was a successfull design, then it would have been incorporated in more production lots.

you remember saying that? well i said i've proved this, which i can do again, if i pro the lanc was better than the B-24 in the roles they were designed for will you give up? because the lancaster dropped more tonnage, carried more per sortie and dropped more per aircraft lost, to me that says the lancaster was better at dropping bombs..........

Click to expand...

The B24 was just as versatile as the Lanc. Aside from carrying a more diverse number of bombs (as I said thats a plus for the Lanc), there was nothing that the lanc could do that the B24 couldnt do as well 9or even better in some applications)

so, let's simulate the B-24 dropping the same tonnage as the lancaster, 710,081 tons! ......................were lost, me thinks that the lancaster is better on this evidence?

Click to expand...

Dont play a statistics game, as youre mixing apples and oranges. if the B24 flew at night, the loss's would drop. If the lanc flew during the day, loss;s would increase. As I said before, you have to compare the two in a similar operating enviornment to draw meaningfull conclusions.

So let's look at the lancaster's advantages, which are all solid fact

payload
manoeuvrability
cruising speed
payload to range
total tonnage
tonnage per sortie
tonnage per aircraft lost
range of weapons carried, including the ability to carry bombs larger than 2,000lbs

Click to expand...

I agree with the first 4, disagree with the next 3 as its playing with statistics, and agree with the final one.

....... one final thing, no amount of defensive armourment will save you on a un-escorted daylight bombing raid on germany......

Click to expand...

Well said, except you completely forget about operations in the PTO. The B24 was just able to defend itself against Japanese fighters (and I mean just able too). The inferior Lancs defensive firepower and single pilot design meant it was more vulnerable to a loss than the B24. For the sake of argument, I will say the weaker wing of the B24 was offset by the use of liquid cooled engines on the Lanc.

so don't say that the B-24 could, because you know as well as I do and as well as everyone on the boards here, the only way you can bomb with a heavy by day is with total air superiority or a roaming escort, losses suffered by the Americans were so bad at one point they were going to knock the daylight bombing on the head, the Lancaster would've been just as good with escort

Click to expand...

Correct, except for one thing. The heavier defensive firepower of the B24's meant they could at least take some German fighters with them. The .303's were not going to hurt anything. And also see my comment aboput the PTO. WW2 was not confined to Europe.

Statistics are what matter though syscom.

the lancaster kicks ass said:

so, let's simulate the B-24 dropping the same tonnage as the lancaster, 710,081 tons!

so, using my figures the B-24 carried about 2 tons per sortie, that means the B-24 would have to do 355,040 sorties! with the B-24's loss rate at 1.6, in order to have dropped an equal tonnage to the lancaster, 5,681 B-24s would be lost, only 3,433 lancasters were lost, me thinks that the lancaster is better on this evidence?

Click to expand...

Now lets look at the data which clearly (in my opinion) shows the Lancs superiority where it matters.

OK now lets say the B-24 flies at night and it's loss rate would decrease (understandably) but by much say to around 1.1 (I think I am being a bit generous) even then it comes out at around 4000 B-24 lost for the same tonnage dropped and that is still a significant number more B-24's than Lancs.