Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

[Gnomey]

 

[syscom3]

The B24 loss's would be no different than the Lancs loss rate. The Lanc would still have more tonnage of course, but the rates begin to get closer.

Im also curious, does anyone have a weekly or monthly tab of Lanc sorties out of England?

 

[Gnomey]

Here is them all by month: http://www.lancaster-archive.com/bc-Stats1.htm it doesn't however specify aircraft type.

How the Lancasters were lost:

 

[syscom3]

Thanks.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Very Cool Gnomey!

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Sorry to hear you cant get a blow job.

you realise that i was saying that if what you said was true, i would get a blowjob, so, my lack of blowjob simply confirms that you're wrong...........

well wadda you know, sex can be used to in an aircraft debate

the percentages was to low to be meaningfull

possibly, however it proves that it could be very easily done, remember these aircraft weren't conversions, theyw ere delivered in two production batches within months of the first Mk.Is entering service! they could have been produced just as easily as the Mk.I and would have been if we'd deemed in nessisary, which we didn't, so, are you claiming to be more informed than the entire RAF in WWII?? after all you've stated that the lanc would need radials, the RAF doesn't agree with you .............

Plus if it was a successfull design, then it would have been incorporated in more production lots

the performance was roughly equal to that of the Mk.I, however the Mk.I was already in service, and more merlins were now available through america, as such it was decided not to continue with the Mk.II in order to get more Mk.I and IIIs into service, i can assure you the Mk.II production wasn't stopped because they weren't good enough...............

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)

dude, re-read what i said to make you reply like that, you'll find i wasn't even talking about versatility, i was talking about their roles as bombers

Dont play a statistics game

everything we're doing revolves around statistics, what else can we use

as youre mixing apples and oranges

no, we're comparing one WWII heavy Bomber to annother, yeah, one flew primarily by day, the other primarily by night, we're still comparing one heavy bomber to annother, tell you what, why don't we make the two aircraft exactily the same in every respect, then try and find which was better? then atleast they wouldn't be apples and oranges, but, wait a minute, if we make them the same how do we decide which is better? i fail to see the apples and oranges............

disagree with the next 3 as its playing with statistics

playing implies i have in some way fiddled the stats, i haven't, i have taken FACTS and used them to prove a point, heck even the loss rates you keep going on about are "playing" with statistics, yet you use them?

here's annother interesting statistic using the loss rates for the lanc you keep going on about, more specifically how "high" they were............

ok, so, 1,000 B-24s (average loss rate for war 1.6%) and 1,000 lancs (average loss rate 2.2%) are sent on a mission, assuming the average loss rates, 16 B-24s and 22 lancs (6 more) are lost..........

so, let's use annother statistic, the stat that says the B-24 dropped 124 tons per aircraft lost, and the stat that says the lanc dropped 203 tons per aircraft lost..........

so, 16 B-24s lost, that means 1,984 tons would be dropped for that mission

but 22 lancs are lost, meaning 4,466 tons are dropped for that mission, so, for an extra 6 aircraft lost, more than double the tonnage is dropped.........

but, all in all, more lancs would be lost, thats more PLANES lost, what about the men? assuming a crew of 10 on the B-24, that's 160 men lost, but only 154 men were lost on the lancs, so, which was the more worthwhile bomber to send?

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

does this mean you'll finally stop going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it? atleast i'm trying to make this disscussion remotely interesting for those people reading this and trying to learn something by using stats to give different senario, not just saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again

The .303's were not going to hurt anything

the same could be said of the B-24's payload

 

[FLYBOYJ]

 

[Gnomey]

 

[cheddar cheese]

not just saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again

Now THAT is funny