Lancaster Vs. B-24 (1 Viewer)

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agreed Glider and FBJ. There is no realistic way to compare the Mossie to the B-29. To do so is absured. 2 different aircraft for 2 different roles. For Strategic bombing the B-29 is the king. It was the most capable, cost effective and got the job done the best.

Hands down can not be argued.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

My point....

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

the B-29 was so good the RAF had to use it to close a "gap" in the early 50s.

hey hey hey let's not blow this outta all proportion, we bought 88 to suppliment the Lincoln force until they were built up to sufficient numbers, they were replaced by canberras in the bombing role after just 4 years, they were far outlived in RAF service by Lincolns............

and in the fast precision strike role the mossie had no equal..........

 

[FLYBOYJ]

hey hey hey let's not blow this outta all proportion, we bought 88 to suppliment the Lincoln force until they were built up to sufficient numbers, they were replaced by canberras in the bombing role after just 4 years, they were far outlived in RAF service by Lincolns............

Hey, not blowing it out of proportion, just proving a point...

and in the fast precision strike role the mossie had no equal..........

Agree...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Thats the point though Lanc, neither aircraft was better than the other in there role, but the Mossie was not a strategic heavy bomber.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Comparing the two aircraft in their designed role is like apples and oranges. Comparing the two aircraft technically is where the B-29 is clearly superior (and I'm not speaking of only size). It was a least a generation a head of the Mossie...

 

[ndicki]

well as you have a military background you would have to agree that not all officers are smart

Is that a personal comment?

Mind you, it got the thread off again, didn't it? And anyway, I have a soft spot for Mossies.

 

[Emac44]

Lancaster by a country mile was better aircraft. As most have already said the Lancaster had numerous modifications for example 617s Lancs doing Dambuster Raid but also same Squadron preforming raid on turpitz and also the Ems canal raids carrying 10,000 12,000 and 20,000 grand slams earth quake bombs. something the old Lib could never do. Thats not by any means casting any negative reaction to Lib crews as they too preformed valuable work as any bomber aircraft did. but the Lancaster proved itself a multi roll aircraft. Also was used as pathfinders along with mosquitoes during many raids into Germany and Occupied Territories. So my vote is for the Lancaster

 

[davparlr]

Lancaster by a country mile was better aircraft. As most have already said the Lancaster had numerous modifications for example 617s Lancs doing Dambuster Raid but also same Squadron preforming raid on turpitz and also the Ems canal raids carrying 10,000 12,000 and 20,000 grand slams earth quake bombs. something the old Lib could never do. Thats not by any means casting any negative reaction to Lib crews as they too preformed valuable work as any bomber aircraft did. but the Lancaster proved itself a multi roll aircraft. Also was used as pathfinders along with mosquitoes during many raids into Germany and Occupied Territories. So my vote is for the Lancaster

Don't lightly dismiss the job the B-24 did in closing the Atlantic Gap in antisubmarine work and its general antisubmarine and antishipping work. As a results the B-24 was adapted to the PB4Y patrol aircraft for the Navy and it was also modified to the C-87 configuration for cargo carrying in which it flew the Hump (not the best conversion, but several hundred were built). All in all, I would say this is pretty good adaptablity.

As a point of interest, the Willow Run Ford plant, when up to capacity in 1943, was producing B-24s at the rate of one per hour! This was just one factory building the B-24, albeit the largest in the world.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think for the most part we can agree that the Lancaster was a better bomber than the B-24 and was the best heavy bomber of the ETO. Now having said that the B-24 was a magnificent bomber as well and did a very good job with what it did.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Don't lightly dismiss the job the B-24 did in closing the Atlantic Gap in antisubmarine work and its general antisubmarine and antishipping work

the only reason the B-24 carried out that role was because there was a surplus of them, the lanc was capable of doing this role as was proved by her superior range and the fact she carried out these exact roles post war...........

 

[Emac44]

Don't lightly dismiss the job the B-24 did in closing the Atlantic Gap in antisubmarine work and its general antisubmarine and antishipping work. As a results the B-24 was adapted to the PB4Y patrol aircraft for the Navy and it was also modified to the C-87 configuration for cargo carrying in which it flew the Hump (not the best conversion, but several hundred were built). All in all, I would say this is pretty good adaptablity.

As a point of interest, the Willow Run Ford plant, when up to capacity in 1943, was producing B-24s at the rate of one per hour! This was just one factory building the B-24, albeit the largest in the world.

By no means am i dismissing b25 crews and what work was performed by them. but we are comparing a daylight bomber to a night time bomber and both had their individual duties to carry out. i would never make disparging remarks about b25 crews then i would lancaster crews. but if you are to say b25 crews were the only ones to do anti submarine work you would be dismissing wellington crews and also air crews from say cataliners and other flyingboats squadrons that performed valuable work in anti submarine warfare. but i am willing to admit that all aircrews regardless of what they were flying and what theatre of operations they flew in did the job they were given or subjected to perform. its not up to us sitting in peacetime tosay which is the better aircraft or not but to the men who flew them and the groundstaff who prepared them for battle and the companies who manufactoured them. without ground crews and aircrews the aircraft no matter what was just another aeroplane sitting at a tarmac etc. it was the individual crews that made the aircraft preform to the duties that were called upon by them to do and let us not forget that. i read some of the earlier comments in this debate. some fantastic photos of production thank you syn and flyboy for those photos they were wonderful, but it was down to aircrews and ground crews to deliever those said aircraft whether being b25s or lancasters to the target that was selected. it was men and women working together in conjunction for a set purpose and unfortunately it was due to war that this was performed. can we at least remember them and give homage honour and respect for those who served not just on b25s and lancasters but for all servicemen and women regardless of the country

yes i am a lancaster fan unabashed for sure because of my father being a lancaster gunner. but he taught me one thing. give honour and respect to all crews regardless to whence they come from. and give honour and respect to those who did not return whether they are posted missing or killed in action. as one forum writer has on his signiture. They gave their today for our tomorrow. and its a sediment i couldn't agree more so. I came late into this debate but i think we are missing an essential point here b25 and lancaster crews did their individual jobs and that is something we have to be proud of. because i know i am proud of my father serving his country as a lancaster gunner. can we agree to disagree but agree on one thing without these men and women during WW2 regardless of being a humble machinist at a factory or a gunner or a pilot or even a ground crew armourer they all performed valuable work and did so to our gratitude and our future. to which we owe so much

 

[Emac44]

I think for the most part we can agree that the Lancaster was a better bomber than the B-24 and was the best heavy bomber of the ETO. Now having said that the B-24 was a magnificent bomber as well and did a very good job with what it did.

Couldn't agree more so

 

[Emac44]

the only reason the B-24 carried out that role was because there was a surplus of them, the lanc was capable of doing this role as was proved by her superior range and the fact she carried out these exact roles post war...........

I will give you one thing me old mate. did you start a rumble in the jungle with this debate right from go to whoa hahaha

 

[syscom3]

The B24 was superior to the Lanc in the PTO.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

again because there was a surplus of them available to send out there, why not compare the aircraft from the same theatre? and the figures for each aircraft used have, for the most part, been for the entire war in every theatre, and the lanc still carried more per sortie, more per aircraft lost and more in total, not only that she had a far greater payload-to-range than the B-24 and could flat out carry more! and that's just their bombing performances! so far the only reason you've been able to come up with as to why the lanc couldn't operate in the PTO was the fact she had four of the most reliable inlines of the war! on top of this your much loved P-38 and P-51 served in the PTO with their inlines without issue........

 

[ndicki]

The only significant reason the Lanc was not used in the FEAF/SEA (PTO is an American term, so inappropriate for the Lanc!) is a simple question of availability and priority. Priority went to the destruction and defeat of Nazi Germany, so that is why the limited number of Lancs available (a question of ressources, not any indicator of some spurious superiority) were used to that end.

RAF and SAAF Liberators were used in the Med, again owing only to questions of availability, and RAF Libs in SEA. Once the Germans had been defeated, the Liberator would have been quickly replaced in the FEAF with Lancasters B.MkI(FE) and B.MkVII(FE), or even, had it lasted, the B.MkIV - the Lincoln under its earlier name. These Merlin-engined variants were modified or built specifically for Far Eastern operations.

No Liberators were kept on post-war in the RAF, except for a few transport versions.

 

[davparlr]

By no means am i dismissing b25 crews and what work was performed by them. but we are comparing a daylight bomber to a night time bomber and both had their individual duties to carry out. i would never make disparging remarks about b25 crews then i would lancaster crews. but if you are to say b25 crews were the only ones to do anti submarine work you would be dismissing wellington crews and also air crews from say cataliners and other flyingboats squadrons that performed valuable work in anti submarine warfare. but i am willing to admit that all aircrews regardless of what they were flying and what theatre of operations they flew in did the job they were given or subjected to perform. its not up to us sitting in peacetime tosay which is the better aircraft or not but to the men who flew them and the groundstaff who prepared them for battle and the companies who manufactoured them. without ground crews and aircrews the aircraft no matter what was just another aeroplane sitting at a tarmac etc. it was the individual crews that made the aircraft preform to the duties that were called upon by them to do and let us not forget that. i read some of the earlier comments in this debate. some fantastic photos of production thank you syn and flyboy for those photos they were wonderful, but it was down to aircrews and ground crews to deliever those said aircraft whether being b25s or lancasters to the target that was selected. it was men and women working together in conjunction for a set purpose and unfortunately it was due to war that this was performed. can we at least remember them and give homage honour and respect for those who served not just on b25s and lancasters but for all servicemen and women regardless of the country

By no means was making an argument for the superiority of the B-24 over the Lancaster. I was only replying to your comment that seem to imply that the Lancaster was flexible and the B-24 was not. Personally, I think the Lancaster was a superior to the B-24 as a heavy lifter but I would perfer to be in a B-24 in the daytime, unless, of course, you traded off some of that load carrying weight on the Lanc for more 50 cals.

As far as the comment on the RAF keeping the Lancaster and not the B-24, if the RAF had B-29s I suspect that the Lancs would have also been relegated to the boneyard.

As everybody said, the planes were great but the real heros were the ones that climbed in and flew and fought and made these aircraft great. When measured against them, we mostly come up short.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The B24 was superior to the Lanc in the PTO.

And the B-24 was superior to the Space Shuttle in the PTO...

 

[Emac44]

By no means was making an argument for the superiority of the B-24 over the Lancaster. I was only replying to your comment that seem to imply that the Lancaster was flexible and the B-24 was not. Personally, I think the Lancaster was a superior to the B-24 as a heavy lifter but I would perfer to be in a B-24 in the daytime, unless, of course, you traded off some of that load carrying weight on the Lanc for more 50 cals.

As far as the comment on the RAF keeping the Lancaster and not the B-24, if the RAF had B-29s I suspect that the Lancs would have also been relegated to the boneyard.

As everybody said, the planes were great but the real heros were the ones that climbed in and flew and fought and made these aircraft great. When measured against them, we mostly come up short.

Oh no didn't take it any way other than what you said but as i replied and you agreed to it was the crews that made the aircraft great. Not sure if the RAF would have traded Lancasters for b29s and relegated Lancasters to the scrape heap. Lancasters had a record all their own as for example 617's use in dam buster raid tripitz raid and ems canal. not sure if Barnes Wallace would have liked designing a bomb for B29 to carry to a specific targets like mentioned before. I do remember seeing a documentary recently on history channel that RAF had accepted some b17s in early 1942 i think and they were unimpressed with them or use of and relegated them to maritime operations. but one has to remember the RAF had their objectives as per say bomber command and the USAAF had their own agendas. but one thing you are correct about we measure short according to the generation who went through a depression and a world war and you will find in later part of WW2 Lancasters were armed with 50 cals in the tail replacing 4x4 303s brownings but this was only a very minor amount of Lancs fitted with this extra punch. but a night time bomber being as the Lancaster was its only rivals were Sterlings and Halifaxes as 4 engined bombers in use in Europe by the RAF. Any way i am enjoying the debate for what it is but keeping in mind one thing it was the crews not just the aeroplane but a combination of crews aeroplane ground staff fitters turners armourers mets mechanics manufacturers etc etc etc the whole lot that got those aircrafts to target. but i still perfer the Lancaster overall call me biased if you want. once a Lancaster fan always a Lancaster fan and no ofeence to B25s fans or any other aircraft etc