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

In that case they easily could have used .50 Cal if needed. The Germans used 20mm in the ETO on all there major interceptors and the Lanc did not have a problem there.
 
And while the Japanese pilots are concentrating on staying out of the Lancasters range, how are they going to concentrate on shooting the aircraft down? Especially if the Lancaster takes evasive, what then? The Japanese fighter has to not only concentrate on staying out of range, but he has to avoid going too slow, get the deflection shooting right, not run out of ammo, keep an eye for all his friends doing the exact same thing ...all of a sudden, guns that are out-ranged become a freakin' hazard and keep the aircraft safe.

Don't tell me you actually think fighters used to just sit on the tail of a bomber and blast away like no one was around but them. You want to go in fast and get out fast - even attacking a formation equipped with .303 is freakin' hard work when you're flying a plane that'll explode if some dude with a high alcohol content in his piss took a fuckin' leak on it. The only reason the .303 was piss poor in the ETO is 'cos the German planes could take the damage on the chin and still come roaring at you to ram a 30mm up your arse, and spit on you as you fall to the deck.

Comparing the ability of the Fw-190 to the Zero against the Lancasters armament is like comparing W.Bush intellect to that of Stephen Hawkin ... no fuckin' competition.
 
plan_D said:
The only reason the .303 was piss poor in the ETO is 'cos the German planes could take the damage on the chin and still come roaring at you to ram a 30mm up your arse, and spit on you as you fall to the deck.
Click to expand...

LOL, I do not know why I thought that was funny, but I could not stop laughing for somereason.
 
The Japanese fighters in 1943 and later were well armed. And if its one thing the Japanese fighters were, and thats maneuverable. A Lanc maneuvering around would have meant nothing to them.
 
Yes you are correct, however the Luftwaffe was far more deadly than the Japanese AF there fore if they could survive in the ETO they could survive in the PTO and your argument has no weight.
 
It doesn't matter how well armed they are. You can still snap their wing off by pissing on it. And you didn't pay attention to the whole post, did you? The Lancaster taking evasive is just another consideration for the pilot trying to follow and aim, while trying to stay out of the Lancaster's gun range. Basically ... saying a Lancaster formation couldn't fend off Japanese fighters ...is, well, quite frankly bullshit. Since British bombers were doing unescorted raids all the time through the war in the CBI.
 
It looks like most of the RAF bomber squadrons in the CBI after 1943 were B24's.

And there is no evidence that Japanese pilots in the CBI and PTO were not brave enough to close in on their target and take some shots at it. To think they were afraid to get within range of the "popgun" .303's is ridiculous.

Doing some internet searches about this, I found this interesting page regarding B24's in service with the RAF.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b24_21.html
 
The B24 had one advantage over every other bomber in WW2 and that was the fact you would find it easier to deploy the 24 world wide because the spares and infrastructure were in every theatre of operations
 
USAAF Heavy Bomber Losses in the Pacific were actually very light, it seems the chances of a Japanese fighter bringing down ANY heavy bomber was very slim. Here are the Statistics....

332 Heavy Bombers were brought down by fighters in all Pacific Theaters, this includes the Aleutians

By contrast Heavy bombers operating in the same theaters claimed 1839 enemy aircraft destroyed..

5.554 to 1

http://www.usaaf.net/digest/operations.htm

And before someone says "the claims weren't accurate or over-stated," its all relative, even if you divide these numbers in half, it shows the Japanese were not good at bringing down heavy bombers in air-to-air combat, in fact even the numbers for medium and light bombers are low. It is my belief that

1. Encounters were infrequent
2. The Japanese pilots did not conduct an effective attack (poor tactics)
3. Their aircraft were inferior in an intercept role

With that said there is no reason to believe that the Lancaster, even armed with .303 guns WOULD OF been able to effectively operate in the Pacific, this is a would of, could of, should of.

If the war would of went on the Lancaster WOULD OF been supplemented with the Lincoln - Twin .50 cal (12.7 mm) M2 machine guns in nose, dorsal and tail turrets, alternatively twin 20mm Hispano cannon in dorsal turret.

There is no rational argument to show that the Lancaster (Or Lincoln) COULD OF operated unsescorted anywhere in the Pacific...
 

Attachments

  • bomber_loss_stats_932.jpg
    68 KB · Views: 305
  • bomber_loss_stats_2_714.jpg
    74 KB · Views: 280
pbfoot said:
The B24 had one advantage over every other bomber in WW2 and that was the fact you would find it easier to deploy the 24 world wide because the spares and infrastructure were in every theatre of operations
Click to expand...

Great point and I think this was part of the thought process in mass producing the B-24 "automotive style." You actually make more money supporting an aircraft fleet with spare parts than you do selling the complete airframe....
 
The Japanese found the US 4 engined heavies very difficult to bring down for a lot of the war. It wan't until the advent of 4 cannon armed high alt interceptors like the Ki-44, Ki-61 and Ki-84 that they had an real kind of counterpunch. Sabro Sakai goes into some detail in 'Samurai' about how for at least the first 12 months of war against the US, the B-17 was probably the most effective combat aircraft the USA had, fighter or bomber He rated it as more difficult to deal with than the P-40 and F4F. The heavies gave the Japanese absolute fits. They had nothing that could match their strength, defensive power, bombload and, probably most importantly fot the PTO, their range or endurance for reconnisance.

As for bomber gunner claims, they were often incorrect by several orders of magnitude. Even experianced fighter pilots commonly overclaimed by 2 or even 3 to 1 in heavy engagements. Some of the more thoughtful articles on the subject of bomber gunner claims suggest that, at least for VIII Bomber Command, claims were around 6 times actual losses. Part of that is the unusual size, confusion and intensity of the air war over Northern Europe, part of that is having 10+ gunners in the same bomber box firing at the same briefly seen target and all claiming it, and part of that is just the natural overclaiming that went on in all airforces.

In the PTO bomber claims are probably more accurate, due to the smaller formation sizes. I'm not attempting to diminish the heavies effect, but I think that even halving kill claims to bomber gunners is generous. In my mind claims are more likely to be 3-4 times actual losses. The most frustrating thing is that we will never be able to really know though, so (as usual) i'm just running off my gut and best guesswork.
 
I never mentioned the Japanese interceptors staying out of range of the .303 cal. It was wmaxt that mentioned the possibility because the Japanese 20mm out-ranged the .303 cal. Do not compare the durability of the German interceptors and the ETO to the Japanese interceptors and the PTO/CBI.

Throughout the war in the CBI the RAF were using various .303 armed aircraft, and all were capable of taking down a Japanese fighter. If the Japanese came within range of the Lancaster's guns there's no doubt that the Lancaster could fend them off just as much as the Liberator did.

There is no proof that states the Lancaster would not be an effective aircraft in the PTO/CBI. The defensive armament of the Lancaster would be enough to deal with the Japanese interceptors.

In 1939 and early 1940, RAF raids against Wilhelmshaven provided excellent information on defensive armament. The Luftwaffe quickly developed tactics to avoid the arcs of fire of the Hampdens and Wellingtons attacking them. This says A) Interceptors will always get in range of the defensive guns, B) .303 cal weren't useless against interceptors, even German ones (except the Fw-190). On one raid against Wilhelmshaven, unescorted bombers shot down four German interceptors with .303 cal (They did claim 12 though) and this was the days of Wellingtons and Hampdens. Now, upgrade that to the defensive armament of Lancasters against the weaker airframe of the Zero, or Oscar, or Shiden.
 
Points Made...

1. If you cut the stats shown in half, USAAF Heavy Bombers outgunned Japanese fighters by almost 3 to 1. I believe the original numbers are pretty accurate based on the operational environment of the PTO.

2. Although recognized that a radial engine is a lot more durable than a water cooled in line, there is no evidence that the Lanc or Merlin WOULD OF performed poorly.

3. The structural limitations of Japanese fighters were well documented. The .303 WOULD OF still brought down any Japanese fighter easily. If you include later better armed and better armored Japanese fighters, you're looking at too little, too late. Bring the Lincoln into the argument and there is no argument.....
 
During heavy bomber operations around Rabual, New Guinea, and New Ireland, the Japanese were able to field a sizable contingent of aircraft from JAAF and IJN. By this time the P-38 had made its entry and began its decimation of the JAAF and IJN. While the USAAF had the luxury of escorts for much of their operations, the Japanese never developed a good strategy for dealing with heavy bombers, they couldn't figure out how to regain air supremacy!

I think it was a matter of tactics and the P-38 that rendered JAAF and IJN interception of heavy bombers ineffective. In keeping on topic, I think the Lancaster, if placed in the same situation WOULD OF came out about the same....

Here's a great site documenting much of this action during 1943 and into 1944

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/248th/248th.htm
 
wmaxt said:
Remember to, the bombers had effective fighter escort almost from the first in the PTO.

wmaxt
Click to expand...

The bombers had little if any escort at all, untill the P38's and F4U's came about.

Remember the ranges needed to fly in the PTO. 500 - 1000 mile missions were the norm.
 

There was little heavy bomber activity in the PTO (Token B-17 raids) until 1943. By that time the B-24 and P-38 were on scene.

Marine F4Us didn't start heavy bomber escort mission until early 1943. I believe VMF-122 and VMF-124 was one of the first squadrons to participate in B-24 escort missions.
 
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