Lancaster Vs. B-24

Which was the better WWII bomber?


  • Total voters
    45

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General
19,937
17
Dec 20, 2003
firstly, could a mod please move this topic to the polls section, i wanted to put it in there but it kept shouting at me saying only a mod could, i would be much obligied if you could

secondly, syscom, or anyone else, I DON'T want the argument between the two bombers in this thread, i feel it belongs more in the best bomber thread, i just want to use this thread to get the public opinion, as currently it's just us two slugging it out, capiche? (is that how you spell that?)

so, which do you think was the better bomber? taking into account their service records and stats, and anything else me and sys have argued about :lol:
 
In my opinion it was the Lancaster. Taking into account all of the factors I see it as the better bomber, even though it flew mainly at night (without large fighter escort) and never flew in the PTO, it was still in my opinon the better bomber.

EDIT: Lanc did you actually vote in the poll (as u never normally do)?
 
Its the Lanc. Range, Payload, Flexibility and ease of adaptability re defence and the bomb bay could have been used for other loads such as extra fuel tanks, electronics whatever.
The B24 was a fine plane and its a close call but to add things to it eg H2S you had to take things off.
 
yes, i'm definately voting in this one :lol: and don't let the fact she flew mostly by night (she flew over 40,000 daylight sorties) put you off, flying by night wasn't easy you know........
 
B24 wins by the proverbial RCH.

Its ease of manufacture, adaptability, defensive firepower and the two pilot design and the radial engines give it an ever slight edge over the Lanc.
 
No syscom the B-24 does not win just because you say it does. If you look at the poll upthere the Lanc is winnning by good odds so far.

You are going to have to prove that the Lanc was harder to build, that the Lanc was not more adaptable (which I am sure the Lanc was), that Lanc could not recieve more armament (because they could have fit it with more armament), that the Lanc coudl not have had a 2nd pilot (because there are 2 pilot Lancs that were built), and that the Lanc could not operate with radial engines (because a lot were built with them).

Your arguments do not hold up syscom.
 
7377 Lancasters were built including the ones built in Canada (430). I don't see where the Lanc had a manufacturing challenge when compared to the B-24. The B-24 was produced in massive numbers due to the people and resources available. Don't forget the first Lancaster flew January 1941, the B-24 was already in production. The B-24 was highly modified throughout it's production, the Lancaster remained basically the same with the exception of the 300 built with radial engines.

I'm a B-24 fan, but I have to give it to the Lancaster, as previous posted my only criticism of the Lanc was the single pilot operation which I feel would of overburdened the pilot in IMC.
 
Agreed FBJ.

I personally love the B-24, hell my favorite bomber is the B-17 even though in my opinion the B-24 and the B-17 were not better than the Lancaster.

One of syscoms largest arguments is the armament of the B-24 compared to the Lancaster. The Lancaster armament was chosen based off of its mission, had it been chosen to do mostly day bombing, I am sure they would have added more armament to it. That is not much of a modification but rather just adding armament it is still the same aircraft.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Agreed FBJ.

I personally love the B-24, hell my favorite bomber is the B-17 even though in my opinion the B-24 and the B-17 were not better than the Lancaster.

One of syscoms largest arguments is the armament of the B-24 compared to the Lancaster. The Lancaster armament was chosen based off of its mission, had it been chosen to do mostly day bombing, I am sure they would have added more armament to it. That is not much of a modification but rather just adding armament it is still the same aircraft.

Agree!
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
No syscom the B-24 does not win just because you say it does. If you look at the poll upthere the Lanc is winnning by good odds so far.

You are going to have to prove that the Lanc was harder to build,

I pointed out the B24 could be built quickly in a mass production method. Since noone has ever posted information on the time a Lanc was built, my assertion stands.

that the Lanc was not more adaptable (which I am sure the Lanc was),

The Lanc was versatile. The B24 was versatile.

that Lanc could not recieve more armament (because they could have fit it with more armament),

But they didnt.

that the Lanc coudl not have had a 2nd pilot (because there are 2 pilot Lancs that were built),

Not many were deployed, if at all.

and that the Lanc could not operate with radial engines (because a lot were built with them).

A radial engined lanc is a whole different plane. If you wanted to throw that into the mix, I wanted to compare it to a B32
 
Two words, "radial Engine", Granted a handfull of Lanc's were built with these engine's. I'll take the B-24 anyday....
Kevin
 
FLYBOYJ said:
7377 Lancasters were built including the ones built in Canada (430). I don't see where the Lanc had a manufacturing challenge when compared to the B-24.

Perhaps not. Untill we see some manufacturing time data for the Lanc, then the B24 wins

The B-24 was produced in massive numbers due to the people and resources available.

If thats true, why was the B24 built more efficently and faster than the B17?

Don't forget the first Lancaster flew January 1941, the B-24 was already in production.

The B24's production didnt ramp up untill 1943. Remember many of the plants that were to build the planes were still being constructed in 1942.

The B-24 was highly modified throughout it's production, the Lancaster remained basically the same with the exception of the 300 built with radial engines.

Im aware of only one significant modification to the B24, and that was the introduction of the nose turret, which wasnt a big deal. Im not counting the single rudder PB4Y's, as they werent built in a lot of numbers.
 
syscom3 said:
I pointed out the B24 could be built quickly in a mass production method. Since noone has ever posted information on the time a Lanc was built, my assertion stands.

And both me and FBJ and proven that your assumption on that is wrong. It did not take one hour to build a B-24. That is just how much the US could put them out.

syscom3 said:
The Lanc was versatile. The B24 was versatile.

Yeap and how does that prove the B-24 is better? It does not.

syscom3 said:
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
] that Lanc could not recieve more armament (because they could have fit it with more armament),

But they didnt.

And that again does not prove that it could not be done and does not prove that the B-24 was better.

syscom3 said:
Not many were deployed, if at all.

Again does not prove anything. It could be done, was done, and if the British had seen the need for it, they would have done it.

syscom3 said:
A radial engined lanc is a whole different plane. If you wanted to throw that into the mix, I wanted to compare it to a B32

No it is not a completly different aircraft. It is a different varient. So the B-24D and the B-24G are different aircraft then because the nose is different which means that the B-24G does not count because it had more armament than the B-24D which is a modification and a different aircraft.

Sorry You Lose! :D
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
syscom3 said:
A radial engined lanc is a whole different plane. If you wanted to throw that into the mix, I wanted to compare it to a B32

No it is not a completly different aircraft. It is a different varient. So the B-24D and the B-24G are different aircraft then because the nose is different which means that the B-24G does not count because it had more armament than the B-24D which is a modification and a different aircraft.
Bingo. A different engine type doesn't make it an entirely different aircraft per se. It's a variant of the Lancaster, nothing more.
 
i said i didn't want to turn this into annother slugging match between me and sys, however if he would like to engage me in a separate thread about which was more versatile, the lanc or the B-24, i would be more than glad to, infact, i think i'll go start one now! and i'm glad i'm not the only one to see the fact that i'm arguing with a different varient of a plane so he's using a completely different plane as crazy and stupid :lol:
 
syscom3 said:
FLYBOYJ said:
7377 Lancasters were built including the ones built in Canada (430). I don't see where the Lanc had a manufacturing challenge when compared to the B-24.

Perhaps not. Untill we see some manufacturing time data for the Lanc, then the B24 wins

From Wikipedia

The majority of Lancasters during the war years were manufactured by Metropolitan-Vickers, Armstrong Whitworth and Avro. The plane was also produced at the Austin Motor Company works in Longbridge, Birmingham later in World War II. Only 300 of the Lancaster Mk II with Bristol Hercules engines were made. The Lancaster Mk III had newer Merlin engines but was otherwise identical to earlier versions; 3,030 Mk IIIs were built, almost all at A.V. Roe's Newton Heath factory. Of later versions only the Canadian-built Lancaster Mk X was produced in any numbers, built by Victory Aircraft in Malton, Ontario, 430 of this type were built. They differed little from earlier versions, except for using Packard-built Merlin engines and having a differently configured mid-upper turret. 7,377 Lancasters of all marks were built over the war; a 1943 Lancaster cost £45-50,000.

The B-24 was produced in massive numbers due to the people and resources available.

syscom3 said:
If thats true, why was the B24 built more efficently and faster than the B17?

Because unlike Lockheed, Douglas and Boeing who built their subassemblies in "segments" and moved them to various parts of the plants for assembly, Consolidated teamed with former automobile manufacturers who developed automotive type production lines for the B-24 where the whole line moved, that why Willow Run, Fort Worth and the Old plant in San Diego are so long. Henry Ford's VP of production (his name escapes me) assisted in setting up Willow run and several other Consolidated facilities. Although achieving numbers, Lockheed Boeing and Douglas for the most part did not adopt this on their 4 engine bomber programs and stayed conventional.

Lockheed did adopt this assembly methodology on the P-38 line being produced in Burbank plant B-1. The line had a steam driven chain that actually moved the entire line of aircraft being assembled.

Don't forget the first Lancaster flew January 1941, the B-24 was already in production.

syscom3 said:
The B24's production didnt ramp up untill 1943. Remember many of the plants that were to build the planes were still being constructed in 1942.

Ramp up? By 1943 there were several hundered B-24s in service, 177 attacked Ploesti in August 1942, the Lancaster first models were't deliveered to squadron until April 1942. What happened in 43 was willow run put the production into "overdrive."

For the Brits to build almost 7,000 Lancaster's is a commendable feat. they did not have the manpower or resources like we had here in the states and also maintained the "segment " production methodology....
 
Some Photos - the top one is Plant A1, Lockheed Burbank - not all the sub assemblies
 

Attachments

  • b24prod_885.jpg
    b24prod_885.jpg
    14.7 KB · Views: 1,162
  • factory_772.jpg
    factory_772.jpg
    16 KB · Views: 916

Users who are viewing this thread

Back