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

syscom3 said:
They were B50's and were mainly for target practice. They sure werent front line aircraft as even the B47 was far superior.
Click to expand...

WRONG-WRONG-WRONG!!!!!!

THE LAST WB-29s WERE RETIRED IN 1960!!!!!!!

And now you're trying to compare SAC with the RAAF!!!

"The Air Force phased out its last B-29 aircraft – a WB-29—in September 1960. Tail number 44-27343 stayed at Army Proving Grounds in Aberdeen, Md. for 30 years before the Air Force decided it needed a B-29 at Tinker again."
 
Syscom you keep throwing out stuff that the B-24 did after the war yet you keep saying that you dont care about after the war only during the war. Thats cool, but then only use stuff after 1945 please.

Second you said the Lancaster did stuff that the B-24 did admirably during the war. Yes you are correct, but you know what the Lancaster did it better.

In almost every post you contradict yourself. It is starting not to make sense. You have not proven a tie between the aircraft, rather you have proven nothing.

I dont harp over crap here. I personally like the B-17 and the B-24 better than the Lancaster but I will not deny that the Lancaster was the better bomber of the 3.
 
Im not contridicting myself at all. I correctly pointing out that the AAF had such a vast fleet of aircraft from which to use, plus unlimitless funds to develope new jet aircraft, that there was no need to use the B24. The Brits didnt have those options and were forced to use a great bomber from WW2 into various postwar rolls.
 
I think syscom is correct in that the RAF was hard pressed after the war there is no doubt that the Lancaster was the better a/c but the UKs economy was in tatters after 6years of war they had large bills to pay off etc proof being in that rationing in the UK continued until 1954 the US was able to upgrade its fleet of a/c and the Brits used what was at hand they were forced to use fighters like the vampire and meteor after they were outdated and import F86s until the Hunter came online.
 
Agree to a point pb - the Brits went on with the Lincoln and the B-29 gave them their initial nuclear strike capability, but with that said if a better aircraft would of been available, they (the UK) would of snatched it up, especially in the cash-strapped post war period. I'm sure there were many in Bomber Command who had thoughts of acquiring dozens of bargain basement B-24s. The -24 was a well used work horse and although it served well I think many military planners in the post war period also knew the -24s limitations and that's why they were quickly scrapped. Although close to the same performance on many WW2 bombers used in the post war years, it had many undesirable characteristics that caused it to be passed by....

You also have to consider the cost of fleet operation and maintenance. Although the B-24 has no cooling system (as pointed out numerous times) it may have also been cost effective to stay with a well proven airframe that has a large spares inventory...

The accolades of the Lancaster's and B-17's handling were lauded throughout WW2 - the B-24 had some notorious idiosyncrasies that followed it to the scrapyards of Arizona...
 
I don't understand how all the B-24 points cancel out the Lancaster good points. Explain to me, syscom, how better defensive armament cancels out the better payload of the Lancaster? The better payload is more important than the defensive armament, since defensive armament wasn't really that important as bombers weren't fortresses in the sky - they needed little friends at every moment for any chance of survival.

Come on, point for point how does the Liberator equal the Lancaster?

Do you think higher ceiling cancels out longer range? More guns cancels out better payload? Second pilot cancels out better handling, adaptability, better speed, survivability, longetivity?
 
Because I think the design of the Lanc made it an inferior aircraft for the PTO. That offsets its fine attributes of payload and range.

Quite simply, in the PTO, without fighter cover, it had no chance of flying the long range missions prevalent in that theater.

The B24 could.
 
And that one aspect that you've thought up make it tied to the Lancaster? No. You cannot prove that the Lancaster could not perform in the PTO. The weather in the theatre is not a problem because Lancasters did, in fact, operate in those conditions post-war (proving the airframe could handle it in the war) and Merlin engines were well in use over the PTO and CBI. The Lancaster has a longer range than Liberator, so the range isn't a problem. And the Japanese interceptors were weaker than their German counter-parts, and .303 could actually tear them to pieces.

So, nothing about the Liberator operating in the PTO cancels out the fact that the Lancaster did what a bomber was designed to better ... fly further, and drop more bombs.

The Lancaster has more good points, and it's good points are more important (range and payload being two most important about any bomber). Defensive armament is somewhat far down the list on priorities given the benefit of hindsight, we know it's pretty much useless.
 
Very well said pD and you are correct. I dont understand what syscom is tryign to say about the Lancasters defensive armament would have made it impossible for it to fly in the PTO when the ETO was by far the most deadly for bombers.
 
Japanese fighters were more effective than you give them credit for. As effective as the Luftwaffe? Nope. Capable of shooting down a B24 or Lanc? Yes.

The B24 had enough defensive firepower to make things tough for the Japanese, and on many occasions went on missions without escort. The Lancaster had weak defensive firepower, engines vulnerable to damage and a single pilot. All taken together, the Lanc could not have performed mssions in the PTO unless it was escorted. And that was a problem where missions were flown that were 1300-1600 miles from base.

I would sum it up this way. In the ETO, both were vulnerable to being shot down by fighters and needed escorts. In the PTO, the B24 was better able to handle unescorted missions.
 
There you go again contradicting yourself:

You said:

Japanese fighters were more effective than you give them credit for. As effective as the Luftwaffe? Nope. Capable of shooting down a B24 or Lanc? Yes.
Click to expand...

Then you said:


Basically what you just said was this: YOu admitted that the ETO was more dangerous than the PTO for bombers. Then you said that the Lancaster could fly in the ETO but not in the PTO because it would be too dangerous because of its lack of defensive fire power.

********HELLO NEWS FLASH********

By DER ADLER IST GELANDET, Bullshit Alert Press Writer
5 minutes ago

SOMEWHERE IN CYBERSPACE - Japanese fighters were very effective however I dont think anyone can argue that the more dangerous skies for bombers due to fighters was the European Theatre of Operations. The Lancaster had a superb career in the ETO and would have done so in the PTO as well because if it could defend itself in the ETO it could defend itself in the PTO also.

In the ETO neither the Lancaster or the B-24 Liberator would have done well without a fighter escort. What does this say about the PTO, they would have done equally as well in the PTO. Maybe the B-24 would have done better but not for any reasons that Mr. Syscom3 has stated.

In an interview today he has done nothing but contradict himself. Mr. Syscom why do you do this? "Because I have come to the conlusion that I have not proven anything and I am running out of arguments."

Ladies and Gentlemen clearly the Lancaster is better than the B-24. Many people have disproven Mr. Syscom3's very vivid to say the least arguments and facts but I am sure we will continue to hear more of them.

********Hello News Flash********

 
In the ETO both planes needed escorts.

In the PTO, the B24 often performed missions without escort.

In the PTO, the Lanc would have been unable to perform missions without escort. If no P38's were available, then the Lanc wouldnt fly the mission.

What part dont you understand?
 
You are stating the defensive armament of the Lancaster was weak by ETO standards. By PTO standards, it was more than enough. Japanese interceptors were weak and .303 would easily tear them to pieces.

On unescorted missions it was still rare for the B-24 to achieve many fighter kills. The Lancaster could have gone in unescorted. It's engines could handle the fight. And the only real problem was the single pilot, but all the advantages of the Lancaster over the B-24 far out-weigh that problem.
 

The .303 also had a limited range against the 20mm of the Japanese fighters. They didn't even have to get close enough to be hit by the .303s.

wmaxt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

  • Poll
AH-4 Apache vs black hawk
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
6K
Thumpalumpacus
M
  • Poll
Which one is overall better between Ta-152H and P-47M/N?
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
_PabloSniper_
K
  • Poll
P-40F vs P-40M
Replies
1
Views
1K
mjfur
M
A
Best British single engined radial aircraft in WW2?
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
2K
SaparotRob
Menu
Log in
Register