the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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,
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).
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.
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.
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.
syscom3 said:The Lanc was versatile. The B24 was versatile.
syscom3 said:DerAdlerIstGelandet said:] that Lanc could not recieve more armament (because they could have fit it with more armament),
But they didnt.
syscom3 said:Not many were deployed, if at all.
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
Bingo. A different engine type doesn't make it an entirely different aircraft per se. It's a variant of the Lancaster, nothing more.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.
You're talking about me? Hmmm. Interesting thought.DerAdlerIstGelandet said:Thankyou NS, I am glad that there are other people with common sense as well.
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
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?
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.