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

Hi all.

Why does an argument ALWAYS start when comparing the Lancaster to some other WW2 heavy four-engine bomber?? I mean, all WW2 bombers each made a contribution to the war effort, and helped end the war.

James.
 
If you read all the threads you would see why?

These arguments are very informative actually and everyone learns from them as well. Both sides of the arguments learn from them.
 
Why does an argument ALWAYS start when comparing the Lancaster to some other WW2 heavy four-engine bomber??
Click to expand...

it's normally either mine or syscom's fault but na i quite enjoy our debates on the subject............
 
Its because theres no doubt the Lancaster deserves to be ranked #3 or #2.

The B29 was magnitudes better than any other WW2 bomber, so why rank the B17/24/Lanc against the best bomber of WW2?
 
OK, so what about the B-17 vs the Mossie? You know AVM Don Bennett's comments to Mrs Ogden Reid of the New York Herald Tribune while watching Mosquito bombers taking off:

Mrs R: I guess it's the usual milk run to Berlin. Tell me, what is their bomb load?
DB: The Mosquito bombers carry a 4,000lb Blockbuster to Berlin.
Mrs R: And what do the B-17 Flying Fortresses carry to Berlin?
DB. At present...they are carrying3,500lbs. In any case, they cannot carry a blockbuster as it is too large for their bomb bays.
Mrs R: I only hope that the American public never realizes those facts.

("Pathfinder", AVM Don Bennett, CB, CBE, DSO)

Later in the same book, he compares the Mossie to the Lanc:

"A Mosquito carried a little over half the bomb load of a Lancaster to Berlin.Its casualty rate was about 1/10th that of the Lancaster.Its cost was 1/3rd of the Lancaster, and it carried two people in its crew instead of seven...value for war effort was well on the side of the Mosquito compared to any other aircraft ever produced..."

The only real advantage of the heavies was range, and in Europe at least, there was not much that a Mossie couldn't do.

Best bomber of WW2?
 
I utterly disagree; the only serious advantage the B-29 (or any other heavy) had over the Mossie was range.

Chew on this:

How many Mossies could you build for the cost of one B-29?
How does the bomb load in tonnage compare for that sum of money spent?
What is the difference in price, ie manpower, resources, time and money, of training a B-29 crew compared to a Mossie's?
What is the degree of survivability of each?
What is the cost in terms of gallons per ton of bombs delivered?
Can B-29s operate with the same degree of precision which reduces the liklihood of having to return to the target again?
Do B-29s need fighter escort? What is the added cost of that?

I could go on.

Big aircraft just make big targets.
 
While I surely understand and can somewhat agree with you, the Mossie can not put down the tonnage that the B-29 can, nor can it carry the large size of bombs that the B-29 can including the A-Bomb.
 
The mossie did not carry the sophisticated navigation eqmt that the B29 had.

Nor did it have the payload and range.

Nor did the mossie have the survivablity of receiving damage like the B29/B24/B17 and Lancaster had. Big airplanes meant more tolerance to damage.
 
The B-29 had about a 10% loss rate through out its career and that includes Korea - its longevity is what give it the major edge over the Mossie the items you tried to point out, additionally the Mossie cold not carry the WMDs of the day. Bottom line, the Mossie didn't routinely carry 22,000 pounds of bombs. BTW - the B-29 was so good the RAF had to use it to close a "gap" in the early 50s.

Chew on this - the life expectancy of the airframe of a Mossie? If your lucky 5 years because of the wood structure. Wood doesn't do too well in changing climates unless the operator could hangar the aircraft - just ask the IAF who had to get rid of their Mossies because they were literary falling apart.

Wood doesn't get repaired that easy in the field - the more it's damaged, the weaker it gets....
ndicki said:
What is the degree of survivability of each?
What is the cost in terms of gallons per ton of bombs delivered?
Click to expand...
The B-29 entered the war in late 1944, here are the stats for very heavy bomber tonnage...

United States Army Air Forces in World War II

ndicki said:
Can B-29s operate with the same degree of precision which reduces the liklihood of having to return to the target again?
Click to expand...
Yes and it did over Japan and North Korea, at one point in both conflicts the aircraft was unstoppable..
ndicki said:
Do B-29s need fighter escort? What is the added cost of that?
Click to expand...
it depended on the the scenario. Sometimes they needed escorts, in Korea they were fored to operate at night but when they did they did not have escorts.
ndicki said:
I could go on.

Big aircraft just make big targets.
Click to expand...
Technically, operationally, and strategically the B-29 was leaps and bound over the Mossie (and that's not taking anything away from it, it was a great aircraft). The B-29 was a complete weapons system and probably the fire control system was more advanced than the whole Mossie airframe. The bombing roles of each were different, but the B-29, even operated conventionally was a war winner, It leveled Japan (and I'm not even talking about the atomic bomb) and squashed communist forces in Korea to the point where they could not openly assemble a large military presence in their major cities.

Hands down the B-29 was the most effect and advanced bomber of WW2
 
Range, agreed. Obviously in SEA, the Mossie suffered primarily from limited range (and glue problems).

In Europe, however, I do not think I can agree with you; sophisticated nav kit was clearly adequate in the Mossie, as proven by No.8 Grp's LNSF, and No.5 Grp's Master Bombers. Their record for target identification was second to none.

Tolerance to damage is a function of probability of receiving damage; the Lanc was certainly the sturdiest heavy used in Europe, but far more Lancs, expressed as a proportion of those engaged, were lost per sortie flown. It remains to be seen if the B-29 would be able to operate more cheaply (=effectively) in the same conditions.

How many Mossies would you need to carry the bomb load of one B-29? Well, it says in my little book that a B-29 carried a load of 9072Kg, while the Mosquito B.MkXVI carried 4,000lbs, or pretty well 2,000Kg. So 4.5 Mossies for the same bomb load. It's going to be close... You'll be looking at survivability, loss rates, etc. Hum... Cost to build both in money and man-hours (perhaps more importantly)?

And five aircraft are far less likely to be ALL shot down than one big one.

Also, I'd point out that with the exception of the USAF and the Soviet AF, all other nations have, since the War, dropped the idea of the big bomber to concentrate on the Mosquito style of aircraft. Which may or may not actually mean much...
 
The B-29 had about 5 tons of sophisticated nav and communications gear - it a matter of the bigger plane carrying more, the Mossie couldn't come close. In Europe missions were flown over several hundred miles, in the Pacific missions over several thousand were commonplace, not taking anything away from the Mossie crews, but they were literary operating in their own back yard, especially late in the war.
That it would of but the bottom line wood is not an easy structure to work on in the field and it has limited longevity.
A B-29 carried 40 500 pound bombs routinely - only the Lancaster came close to this, I don't have man hour costs on Mossie production, but the B-29 was posted here in earlier threads and were in the same range as other "smaller " heavies of the period and the production man hours was shrinking by the time the war ended.

ndicki said:
And five aircraft are far less likely to be ALL shot down than one big one.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but when you have one big one that could to the job of the 5 and have the weapons system available for 15 years, it's pretty obvious which one is more effective...
ndicki said:
Also, I'd point out that with the exception of the USAF and the Soviet AF, all other nations have, since the War, dropped the idea of the big bomber to concentrate on the Mosquito style of aircraft. Which may or may not actually mean much...
Click to expand...
In today's world true, anti-aircraft systems rendered "big" lumbering aircraft obsolete for the most part, unless one develops an aircraft like the B-1 or the Backfire and operates fast at low level. At the same time an aircraft like the B-52 is used with great effectiveness when air superiority was achieved, this just seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
Gentlemen.
The honest truth is that you need both types of aircraft to do different jobs.

You wouldn't argue that the Mossie was better than the Lanc so why say it was better than the B29.

Trying to picture a Mossie with a Tallboy is almost as daft as using a B29 for ultra low marker 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