Lancaster Vs. B-24

A little off the subject here..

Anyone know of David J Blain... A nav on a B-24...459th bomb group..757th squadron..15th Army Air Corps.... Plane was "The Peace Maker"... Did 37 missions ...

Anyone know him or info on him... He's a friend ...Real hard old guy to get info out of .. I findlee got him to wright some of it down..

And the B-24 info has been great guys by the way ... Lanc info to has been a treat also

Thanks

David

Hazardous Toys inc

syscom3 said:

Glider said:

I was waiting for the Privateer to be mentioned by Syscom. What suprised me was how long it took, I was expecting it when the Lincon was first mentioned.

Click to expand...

Im more concerned about the 1942-1945 years, not what happened after the war.

Click to expand...

And you said this yourself so who cares about the privateers or the B-36 or anything else after the war. The Lancaster was better, sorry bud but again you have proven nothing but yet you still managed to contradict yourself. Here I will show you how:

You said:

But then, you dont count the Privateers that performed good service for the forest service well into the 80's (90's?)

B24 wins again!

Click to expand...

and then you said:

Im more concerned about the 1942-1945 years, not what happened after the war.

Click to expand...

You just contradicted yourself and based off of what you said, you proved nothing again! Basically if its good for the B-24 it can be used but if its good for the Lancaster, you dismiss it automatically.

Sorry bud, youve lost again!

My point is who cares what they did after the war. They were good bombers for that era, and really useless after the war.

If Lanc wants to bring up all the fine and dandy roles the Lanc performed, I say the Privateers did an even better job in the more usefull role of fire fighting.

Well said Adler! I've shown performance specifications that show the aircraft were similar in speeds, wing loading and fuel consumption, the Lanc had lower landing and stall speeds, a big plus. The fact that the B-24 was quickly removed from service indicates that it was not operational desirable in any role in the post WW2 era. B-17s were used for SAR roles, as drones, and many other secondary roles. The B-25 spent many years as a trainer. Why was the B-24 passed up? Here are the severe negatives - It was a heavy aircraft to fly, it was tail heavy (a very undesirable characteristic in a multi engine aircraft, unless you want to spin easy) landed fast, had inherent maintenance problems (hydraulic and fuel problems) and the worse thing, had very poor engine out characteristics because of its long Davis wing, something that the -17 and Lancaster didn't have. I'll state again, the B-24 served well, but was essentially a dump truck, once the war was over it quickly was sent into the abyss. The Lancaster lended it self for post war applications well, and the argument about it having to supplemented it with other bombers (ie the B-29) is just bogus as the B-24 just supplemented the post war aluminum scrap metal supply!!!

Sys you have given no operational data to show the B-24 was better than the Lancaster. I see only 3 operational characteristics that the B-24 had over the Lancaster...

1. A co-pilot
2. More Armament but a caveat - I recently read that despite using waist gunners, this position of US bombers was the most difficult position to score a hit from and some historians have stated that the waist gunner might of even been a waste (no pun attempted) of time as they actually achieved little in the defense of the bomber. They also had the highest casuality rate...
3. It flew slightly higher

The Lancaster carried a heavier bomb load over longer distances, lended it self better for special operations (dam busting and tall boy operations) was able to carry the most advanced electronic suites available in its day, the the most important in my book - it probably handled a hell of a lot better than the -24 in all cases. Although the wing loading was almost the same, the Lancaster's engine out characteristics were way better than the B-24 and probably as many B-24s were lost because of its poor engine characteristics as Lancasters were lost because of the single pilot situation.

Saying that the -24 gets more points because it served in two theaters is just dumb. The P-39 served in 2 theaters, was it better than the P-51?!?!

Until you could show data that the B-24 was better flown and operationaly superior, the Lancaster wins hands down was the evidence shown here it was the superior aircraft....

syscom3 said:

My point is who cares what they did after the war. They were good bombers for that era, and really useless after the war.

Click to expand...

Useless?!? SAR roles, transports, drones, trainers ELINT platforms - that's what the Lanc and B-17 did after the war, the B-24s were scrapped, reasons already shown!!!

syscom3 said:

If Lanc wants to bring up all the fine and dandy roles the Lanc performed, I say the Privateers did an even better job in the more useful role of fire fighting.

Click to expand...

Only 10 of them were used, 5 crashed, sure they were useful in ONE limited role. The Lanc did many roles almost 20 years after the war....

You're grasping at straws Sys, look at the voting. Until you show some substance, the Lanc is and has been shown as a superior aircraft!!!

Agreed FBJ, well said.

P51's served in the PTO, MTO and ETO.

Why should the US keep any B24's after the war when we had B29's? ELINT went to the B29's. SAR? B17 had the most rugged airframe of the three so it was kept on for that reason. B25 trainer? Not a 4 engine bomber is it. B17 transport? Ummm...... maybe a transport for a General. But a transport for general service? Hahahahahah. Not with C54's, C69's and C119's available. Maritime patrol? That was a USN responsibility and they wanted their own purpose built aircraft to do that. Perhaps you should be asking why didnt the RAF have better aircraft around so that they had to keep the Lanc around for so long.

Like Ive continually proven, the Lanc had its good points and the B24 had its. They all concelled each other out so it was a tie. The Lanc's ratings weigh to much on "could have" scenarios.

syscom3 said:

Perhaps you should be asking why didnt the RAF have better aircraft around so that they had to keep the Lanc around for so long.

Click to expand...

They did - it was called the Lincoln. But the Lanc served so well it was kept around as well...

syscom3 said:

Like Ive continually proven, the Lanc had its good points and the B24 had its. They all concelled each other out so it was a tie. The Lanc's ratings weigh to much on "could have" scenarios.

Click to expand...

You've proven nothing - I've shown hard data. The B-24 was a dump truck and there were WAY better aircraft around in the post war years, one of them being the Lancaster.

As much as I admire the Liberator, the Lanc was a better bomber- the Lib was better in the MR role IMO though

They did - it was called the Lincoln. But the Lanc served so well it was kept around as well...

Click to expand...

In the post war years, there was nothing that the B24 could have done just as well as the Lanc. The only reason they were declared surplus so quickly is aviation technology for the US marched on a rapid pace and there were better designs that had evolved as the war ended. Why keep a 1972 truck in your garage when you have a 2006 truck that can do more?
Think about it. The AAF had the B29 and B32 under production, and the B35 and B36 under development. Why would any air force want to keep obsolete aircraft on the inventory? Perhaps Britain saw a need, but that doesnt mean it was superior. If the B29 turned out to be a disaster and the B32 couldnt have been produced fast enough, then the AAF would have kept on the B24 postwar.

You've proven nothing - I've shown hard data. The B-24 was a dump truck and there were WAY better aircraft around in the post war years, one of them being the Lancaster.

Click to expand...

Youve provided excellent data proving both were equal.

syscom3 said:

They did - it was called the Lincoln. But the Lanc served so well it was kept around as well...

Click to expand...

In the post war years, there was nothing that the B24 could have done just as well as the Lanc. The only reason they were declared surplus so quickly is aviation technology for the US marched on a rapid pace and there were better designs that had evolved as the war ended. Why keep a 1972 truck in your garage when you have a 2006 truck that can do more?
Think about it. The AAF had the B29 and B32 under production, and the B35 and B36 under development. Why would any air force want to keep obsolete aircraft on the inventory? Perhaps Britain saw a need, but that doesnt mean it was superior. If the B29 turned out to be a disaster and the B32 couldnt have been produced fast enough, then the AAF would have kept on the B24 postwar.

You've proven nothing - I've shown hard data. The B-24 was a dump truck and there were WAY better aircraft around in the post war years, one of them being the Lancaster.

Click to expand...

Youve provided excellent data proving both were equal.

Click to expand...

Syscom. It was you that said that you didn't care about post war wasn't it?

As for the data, you have to be kidding. Can you explain how that becomes a draw?

I don't see a B-24 being able to carry a Tallboy, a Grandslam or a bouncing bomb (forgotton its name). The Lanc could (and did) carry all.

Britain kept the Lanc because there was plenty of them and along with the Lincoln they made a good bombing force in the post war years. Not the best but still pretty damn good.

If the B29 turned out to be a disaster and the B32 couldnt have been produced fast enough, then the AAF would have kept on the B24 postwar.

Click to expand...

No they would have kept the B-17 and upgraded it, the B-24 would of still ended up as pots and pans albeit in maybe less numbers.

Youve provided excellent data proving both were equal.

Click to expand...

If you look at the data you will see that the Lanc has a better payload and range and flies at a similar altitude. The B-24 flies higher, has less range and payload, has no electonics (or very little), 2 pilots and more armament. On the most important things for a bomber the Lanc is better, it carrys more bombs further, that is the whole aim of a heavy bomber. B-24's relied more on the escort than their own defensive guns, had the Lanc been in the same position it would of suffered similarly. With an escort to protect it daylight the Lanc is a much superior bomber than the B-24 being more efficient at the job of dropping bombs.

Gnomey, the bouncing bomb's name was Upkeep.

I always thought that a second pilot was a disadvantage because it meant another dead man in every plane that went down. The practice of having 2 pilots was stopped in 1941 (I think) by the RAF but the flight engineer, wireless operator and navigator were trained by the pilot in basic flying in case he was hit

syscom3 said:

They did - it was called the Lincoln. But the Lanc served so well it was kept around as well...

Click to expand...

In the post war years, there was nothing that the B24 could have done just as well as the Lanc. The only reason they were declared surplus so quickly is aviation technology for the US marched on a rapid pace and there were better designs that had evolved as the war ended. Why keep a 1972 truck in your garage when you have a 2006 truck that can do more?

Click to expand...

And it flew like a 1972 truck, by admittance by its own pilots

syscom3 said:

Think about it. The AAF had the B29 and B32 under production, and the B35 and B36 under development. Why would any air force want to keep
obsolete aircraft on the inventory?

Click to expand...

Right - that's why the B-24 went away so quickly. Operationally, Technically and maintainability wise it was obsolete, although the Jet was on its way in, the Lanc, becuase it was a better airframe had room in a postwar world...

syscom3 said:

Perhaps Britain saw a need, but that doesn't mean it was superior.

Click to expand...

In some of the posted sites it was stated the RAF had something like 1600 B-24s by wars end. many of them wound up in a bone yard in India later to be used by the IAF - the only airforce to keep the Liberator around a few more years. The RAF kept the Lanc around along with the Lincoln cause it was able to do the job....

syscom3 said:

If the B29 turned out to be a disaster and the B32 couldn't have been produced fast enough, then the AAF would have kept on the B24 postwar.

Click to expand...

Would of should of could of - If the B-17 was a disaster we would of been bombing with B-18s - RIGHT!

You've proven nothing - I've shown hard data. The B-24 was a dump truck and there were WAY better aircraft around in the post war years, one of them being the Lancaster.

Click to expand...

syscom3 said:

Youve provided excellent data proving both were equal.

Click to expand...

Thank you but No - if you look into the fact the Lanc had a lower stall speed, landed slower, carried more ordnance, was a better flier, had better engine out characteristics, lended itself to carry more electronics and was not quickly strickened from service despite the Lincoln coming on scene, the Lanc proved to be a better airframe...

Syscom. It was you that said that you didn't care about post war wasn't it?

As for the data, you have to be kidding. Can you explain how that becomes a draw?

Click to expand...

I dont care how either aircraft did post war because Britain didnt have the resources to dvelope new aircraft while the US did. All the roles the Lanc did post war were performed admirably by the B24 DURING the war.

I look at the statistics and for every plus for the Lanc, theres a plus for the B24. Some have more weight than others, and in the end, they balace each other out.

Britain kept the Lanc because there was plenty of them and along with the Lincoln they made a good bombing force in the post war years. Not the best but still pretty damn good.

Click to expand...

All the roles that the Lanc did postwar were done by the B24 during the war. Lets face it, while the USAF and USN were designing their airplanes a generation removed from WW2, you were still using a WW2 design cause you couldnt afford to design and build your own.

No they would have kept the B-17 and upgraded it, the B-24 would of still ended up as pots and pans albeit in maybe less numbers.

Click to expand...

The B17 was withdrawn from service in the PTO for various reasons. The only reason it continued to fly in the ETO was its solid airframe. There was little that could be done to improve or modify the airplane.

If you look at the data you will see that the Lanc has a better payload and range and flies at a similar altitude....

Click to expand...

I have never disputed its range and payload.

.....has no electonics (or very little)...

Click to expand...

Not true. B17's and B24's were equiped with H2S bombing radar. The Gee or OBOE systems used by the RAF were not effective at the longer ranges they both flew into Germany. The Lanc needed them because it bombed by night. The AAF figured it wasnt worth the effort to install it on the B17/B24's due to they flying during the day.

In the PTO, only the radar bombing system was useable. B24's were equiped with it.

B-24's relied more on the escort than their own defensive guns, had the Lanc been in the same position it would of suffered similarly. With an escort to protect it daylight the Lanc is a much superior bomber than the B-24 being more efficient at the job of dropping bombs.

Click to expand...

Ten .50's is a tad more effective in defense than the ten .303's on the Lanc. At least the B24 had the opportunity to knock out an occasional fighter. Plus, the B24 was just marginably able to defend itself without escort in the PTO. The Lanc with its .303's was just a sitting duck.

mosquitoman said:

Gnomey, the bouncing bomb's name was Upkeep.

I always thought that a second pilot was a disadvantage because it meant another dead man in every plane that went down. The practice of having 2 pilots was stopped in 1941 (I think) by the RAF but the flight engineer, wireless operator and navigator were trained by the pilot in basic flying in case he was hit

Click to expand...

In a single pilot setup, if he is incapacitated for any reason during the mission, the mission is in jepordy. If its shortly after takeoff, then its an abort. If hes killed while approaching the target, perhaps the bomb run cant be performed. If hes wounded or killed and the plane is damaged, then the airplane and crew could be lost beacuse the other crewman were NOT pilots.

I will admit that the .303's are if too small a calibre ("peashooters") but Lancs were fitted with .50's before the wars end there was no reason why this could not continue. At night the .303's could ward off enemy night fighters, but during the day they would be vunerable. The one big weakness in my view is the lack of belly gun, although this would hamper the size of the bomb bay, a simple "tunnel gun" fitted at the back (just in front of the tail gunner) or at the front (near the mid upper turret or by the bombardier) would have made a big difference against the Shrage Musik equiped night fighters that Germany had.

And it flew like a 1972 truck, by admittance by its own pilots

Click to expand...

fighters are fighters, bombers are trucks.

Would of should of could of - If the B-17 was a disaster we would of been bombing with B-18s - RIGHT!

Click to expand...

True. But the B24 was developed a few years after the B17 first flew. That means the B18 would have been pushed aside. Im talking about 1943/1944 not 1937.

You've proven nothing - I've shown hard data. The B-24 was a dump truck and there were WAY better aircraft around in the post war years, one of them being the Lancaster.

Click to expand...

There were way better aircraft around that were doing the roles the Lanc was doing, but doing it even better. The Brits were stuck with what they had.

Thank you but No - if you look into the fact the Lanc had a lower stall speed, landed slower, carried more ordnance, was a better flier, had better engine out characteristics, lended itself to carry more electronics and was not quickly strickened from service despite the Lincoln coming on scene, the Lanc proved to be a better airframe...

Click to expand...

But your list doesnt compare the intangibles. PTO performace vs ETO. Radial engine reliability with damage vs inline engines with coolant leaks. pilot fatigue on long missions, etc.

Gnomey said:

I will admit that the .303's are if too small a calibre ("peashooters") but Lancs were fitted with .50's before the wars end there was no reason why this could not continue. At night the .303's could ward off enemy night fighters, but during the day they would be vunerable. The one big weakness in my view is the lack of belly gun, although this would hamper the size of the bomb bay, a simple "tunnel gun" fitted at the back (just in front of the tail gunner) or at the front (near the mid upper turret or by the bombardier) would have made a big difference against the Shrage Musik equiped night fighters that Germany had.

Click to expand...

In the PTO, belly turrets were dispensed with starting with the B17's flying out of the PI and Java. Most B24's Ive seen in pics from the PTO had a tunnel gun setup.