Best Bomber

• Jun 26, 2004

• #281

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

it's payload wasn't that great becasue it didn't need to be as bombing wasn't it's primary role, as you said.......................

 

• Jun 28, 2004

• #282

M

MP-Willow

Staff Sergeant

894

2

Jan 16, 2004

Saco, MAINE!!!!

True but it did bomb shipping early in the war and like the other great 4 engine programs given the time it might have developed into what the German's needed. The Lanc, B-17, and even the B-4 al ent through a lot of changes ad developments so I am shore that the Fw-200 would have it given the time. It just never had time, priority, or funds

 

• Jun 28, 2004

• #283

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

actually the lanc stayed prettymuch unchaged throughout the whole war..................

 

• Jun 28, 2004

• #284

Dan

Airman

61

0

Apr 24, 2004

Kamloops B.c.

for one thing it certianly isn't the Do-17 because they stopped making it after the battle of britan

 

• Jun 28, 2004

• #285

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

The basic Lanc was unchanged, but it was modified to serve a lot of different roles. I think the Fw-200 would have required more that just a few changes. It was, basically, a civilian aircraft converted to military purposes and that rarely worked out well. Just look at the Do-17.

 

• Jun 29, 2004

• #286

M

MP-Willow

Staff Sergeant

894

2

Jan 16, 2004

Saco, MAINE!!!!

But the Lanc could have done with some more work. Armore, and range, but that would make it more a daylight platform yes?

I never said that the Fw-200 would have been a quick fix, but that it had the potential.

 

• Jun 29, 2004

• #287

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

In my opinion, the only things the Fw-200 had going for it were its size and range. The Luftwaffe was better off trying to design a real 4-engined bomber.

 

• Jun 29, 2004

• #288

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

why did the lanc need more range??

 

• Jun 29, 2004

• #289

Dan

Airman

61

0

Apr 24, 2004

Kamloops B.c.

i would easly say it was the b-29 superfortress that was the best bomber in world war 2; though the b-24 was built to replace the b-17 it wasn't as superior as they origionaly thought it would be: why? well let's just say that the b-24's wings weren't as strong as the b-17

 

• Jun 29, 2004

• #290

Dan

Airman

61

0

Apr 24, 2004

Kamloops B.c.

now that i think about it the Lancaster looks alot like the Ju-390 except that the junkers had 6 engines instead of 4

 

• Jun 29, 2004

• #291

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

Dan, the B-24 was superior to the B-17 in just about every category of performance.

 

• Jun 30, 2004

• #292

Dan

Airman

61

0

Apr 24, 2004

Kamloops B.c.

meh, i guess what i heard was wrong

 

• Jun 30, 2004

• #293

M

MP-Willow

Staff Sergeant

894

2

Jan 16, 2004

Saco, MAINE!!!!

Dan, the B-24 was very advaced for its time. And that Wing Mr. Davis designed it for long range and crusing. The bomber would have replace the B-17 in peace time a lot faster then in the war setting ad the B-24 was itself going to be replaced by the B-29 as it was under design in the early war years, the date eludes me now. Dan it is ok that you have bad info on the B-24 most people seem to be jadded about it, because the B-17 has a lot of press.

 

• Jun 30, 2004

• #294

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

I'm still waiting for an answer, why did the lanc need more range MP??

 

• Jul 2, 2004

• #295

M

MP-Willow

Staff Sergeant

894

2

Jan 16, 2004

Saco, MAINE!!!!

More range is always good!!! But for the Lanc it would have been more range for daylight ops. but really I sould have said a ball gun Also the range would have let it hit the iol and ball factories in Eastern Europe at night! but then it did have a good range and load, but the armore and guns were lacking, the ball again

 

• Jul 2, 2004

• #296

Dan

Airman

61

0

Apr 24, 2004

Kamloops B.c.

well this might be true or not but i heard that the B29 was built to replace the B24 AND the B17 so hah! in your face!!!

 

• Jul 3, 2004

• #297

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

How is that in anyones "face"? The B-17 was surpassed by the B-24 and the B-24 was surpassed by the B-29.

 

• Jul 3, 2004

• #298

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

it's all very well you saying that MP, but i could easily say that the B-17 needed more range, and the lanc had better range than the B-17 anyway.............................

 

• Jul 5, 2004

• #299

M

MP-Willow

Staff Sergeant

894

2

Jan 16, 2004

Saco, MAINE!!!!

Lanc -true, maybe they both had the nich they needed, but the Lanc seemed to be developed more after the war.

 

• Jul 5, 2004

• #300

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

after the war the lancaster evolved into the lincon, which it tern led to many more more bombers, the last of which, the shackelton, is still in servise today, but to be honest the lanc was never really changed at all throughout the whole war.............................