Lancaster Vs. B-24

[Emac44]

The B24 was superior to the Lanc in the PTO.

do you want to detail Lancaster Squadrons in Pacific operations as i don't have information on that or are you referring to Lincolns perhaps. and by the way Lincolns were used very effectiviely in Malayan campaign in the 1950s

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I see this thread flairing back up again. We argued this over and over and pretty much everyone is convinced that the Lancaster was superior to the B-24 except syscom.

Having said that the B-24 was a magnificant aircraft as well and due her praise as well.

 

[ndicki]

The only significant reason for the deployment of the Boeing Washington - for the four years in question - is only that the Lincoln was designed for use with conventional bombs; its bomb bay was therefore long and relatively shallow, compared to the squat, deep bomb bays on the B-17, B-24 and B-29 - the very reason why the RAF did not like the American aircraft for bombing ops in WW2. They could not carry large bombs. For a nuclear bomb, however, the Lincoln's bomb bay was rather the wrong shape, and it would have ended up hanging outside, much in the way Grand Slam bombs did on B.I Specials. Not ideal for long distances. The Washington, as shown over Japan, did not have this problem.

To come back to it, No.90 Sqn RAF was the first offensive user of the B-17c/Fortress B.MkI (8th July 1941, against Wilhelmshaven), before the Americans joined the fight, and while Boeing had marketed the aircraft as able to out-fly (especially in terms of ceiling) and out-fight the opposition, this turned out not to be the case. The USAAC had, however, neglected to read the manual, and considered that Fortresses should be used in mutually-supporting formations. By then, the RAF had decided that the Fortress was really not what it needed for bombing operations, and rather than scrap the things, inflicted them on Coastal Command instead after they had made a brief and again unsuccessful tour of Egypt.

The only further use made by Bomber Command of Liberators MkVI et al, and Fortresses MkIIa and III was as radio countermeasures aircraft, with No.100 Group; here, their cavernous bomb bays were modified into R/Os offices, and equipped with all the latest toys.

 

[syscom3]

I'm reading the group history of the 22nd BG, and am more than ever convinced that the B-24's tandem cockpit layout and far heavier defensive firepower made it superior to the Lanc in the operations in the PTO.

The crappy weather, very long mission times and problematic fighter escort were serious issues to deal with, and the B24 offered capabilities to make a mission successfull.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

the B.MkIV - the Lincoln under its earlier name

the Mk.IV and V lancasters were never given the B. designation, that came later in the war..........

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

phew sys, it's a good thing there was never any fighters over Europe, what would the lanc have done and the second pilot issue was easily solved by the addition of a second controll colum, which there was provision for on all lancs and indeed it is the original second pilot control system that allows the present day flying lancs to have dual controlls........

 

[syscom3]

Lanc, the missions in the PTO were so long, that parts of the mission had to be done during the daylight. Unlike Europe where the missions were far shorter and done with a high probability of being in darkness.

Thats why you had to be able to defend yourself if there were no fighters escorts available.

 

[k9kiwi]

Geez ya Maroon.

Taking off in daylight within friendly airspace, outside of enemy fighter range by 3 hours flying time and meeting your fighter escort two hours later.

You could have carried a bloody 9mm pistol for protection up to that point.

NO ENEMY FIGHTERS HAD THE RANGE TO GET YOU.

and once again.

Lancasters were not used in the PTO

Which part of that is confusing you?????????

 

[syscom3]

Geez ya Maroon.

And youre an ***?

Taking off in daylight within friendly airspace, outside of enemy fighter range by 3 hours flying time and meeting your fighter escort two hours later.

Quite a few missions were of 10 to 11 hours of duration

You could have carried a bloody 9mm pistol for protection up to that point.

The AAF issued .45's to the crews, mainly for jungle survival.

NO ENEMY FIGHTERS HAD THE RANGE TO GET YOU.

Japanese fighters were based through out the PTO and frequently intercepted the bombers

and once again.[/quote]

Lancasters were not used in the PTO

Which part of that is confusing you?????????

Which is why the B24's were superior. They fought there and not the Lancs.

 

[k9kiwi]

At this point Kiwi retires for more beer remembering the old adage

"There are only two things that I know are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I am not so sure about the former."

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

syscom at this point i would like to take the oppertunity to remind you that the lancaster did not melt in the sunlight, as was capable enough to operate in the daytime to the tune of over 40,000 daylight missions over Europe for a 0.7% loss rate, what's more the japanese arial opposition was worse (or atleast less heavy or concentrated) as it was over europe, .303s worked against flimsy japanese planes as had been proven........

 

[ndicki]

I'm reading the group history of the 22nd BG, and am more than ever convinced that the B-24's tandem cockpit layout and far heavier defensive firepower made it superior to the Lanc in the operations in the PTO.

The crappy weather, very long mission times and problematic fighter escort were serious issues to deal with, and the B24 offered capabilities to make a mission successfull.

The Lanc never got the chance to operate in the "PTO" though, did it, so we'll never know.

And the FE type Lancs were fitted with .50 cal guns in the rear and mid-upper turrets ( FN82 and Martin), so that alone negates one of your points. Some were even fitted with Bristol B.17 MU turrets with twin 20mm cannon. Superior firepower?

The Lanc's range, depending on type, load and mission parameters, was about 2,350 miles with 7,000lbs. This could go up to about 14,000lbs of assorted types of bomb, or even 22,000lbs with the Grand Slam, although with a corresponding drop in range and ceiling (One reason why one has to be very careful with performance stats.) The Liberator B.MkVI had a range of 1,470 miles; I have not been able to determine the bomb load or gross T/O weight for this figure.

Flight Engineers were usually frustrated pilot wannabees, and were generally capable of flying the aircraft, with occasional help from George, in most non-combat situations.

 

[ndicki]

Here you are, extracts from (first) A.P. 2026A-PN Pilot's Notes for Lancaster, and then A.P. 1867C,D,E,F,G,J-PN Pilot's Notes for Liberator III, V, VI and VIII.

Have fun.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'm reading the group history of the 22nd BG, and am more than ever convinced that the B-24's tandem cockpit layout and far heavier defensive firepower made it superior to the Lanc in the operations in the PTO.

It's side-by-side. Tandem is what you have in say a trainer (SNJ)

The Lanc never got the chance to operate in the "PTO" though, did it, so we'll never know.

BINGO!

Flight Engineers were usually frustrated pilot wannabees, and were generally capable of flying the aircraft, with occasional help from George, in most non-combat situations.

As pointed out earlier probably the only real operational advantage the B-24 had over the Lanc (The second pilot), especially when nursing a shot up plane back home or when attempting to shoot an early beam approach in the fog - probably more hazardous than the actual mission.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

phew sys, it's a good thing there was never any fighters over Europe, what would the lanc have done

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Lanc, the missions in the PTO were so long, that parts of the mission had to be done during the daylight. Unlike Europe where the missions were far shorter and done with a high probability of being in darkness.

Allright lets look at this way. Not to say the PTO was not dangerous and you did not have to deal with fighters and FLAK because we all know you did but lets look at the ETO a bit too.

The moment you took off from England you were withing range of enemy fighters. In the PTO you had a good ways until you were within range of enemy fighters. The moment you crossed the Channel you were over enemy held territory, in the PTO you were over water that was not controled by anyone unless there were ships in the area (granted water is very dangerous too, I would hate to crash in the water). In the ETO the whole time rought to the target was covered by Luftwaffe fighters and FLAK from the ground (dont tell me they were not shot at all the time from teh FLAK, I know this, but the threat was there and everytime they came near a larger city they had to deal with FLAK). In the PTO you did not have to deal with this...

Also the Luftwaffe had effectively developed very sophisticated and very successful night fighter aircraft. Also I dont care how many guns the B-24 has, the gunners can not shoot at what they can not see in the darkness of the night. There were no aircrews with night vision devises so the B-24 so the argument of total darkness is thrown out the window...

Thats why you had to be able to defend yourself if there were no fighters escorts available.[/QUOTE]

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Which is why the B24's were superior. They fought there and not the Lancs.

I am going to try and use your logic here. The P-80, Meteor, and Me-262 were not used in the PTO and therefore since the Corsair was it is superior to the above mentioned aircraft.

That is your logic....

Good one syscom for not proving anything again, and just babbling...

 

[ndicki]

I think I've said this before - Lancasters fought in Europe because there were limited numbers of them (Britain and Canada did not have the USA's capacity for virtually unlimited production), and the Allies as a whole had decided to concentrate on the elimination of Nazi Germany first. Therefore no operational Lancasters were sent to the FE before VE-Day. That is the only reason.

The Liberator had been judged inappropriate for use as a heavy bomber by Bomber Command - we have already discussed why.

The fact that Liberators were used by the RAF in the Far East would tend to indicate actually that it was in fact an inferior type, as the RAF continued to use aircraft types in SEAC long after they had been withdrawn from service in Bomber Command. The Blenheim and the Wellington are prime examples of this.

Sorry, but there you are.

 

[syscom3]

syscom at this point i would like to take the oppertunity to remind you that the lancaster did not melt in the sunlight, as was capable enough to operate in the daytime to the tune of over 40,000 daylight missions over Europe for a 0.7% loss rate,

But thats a combined night/day rate. The Lanc in daylight was the most vulnerable of the three heavy bombers during daylight simply because if inadequate defensive capabilities for day time role.

what's more the japanese arial opposition was worse (or atleast less heavy or concentrated) as it was over europe, .303s worked against flimsy japanese planes as had been proven........

Later model Japanese fighters did have armor and were not as vulnerable.

 

[syscom3]

As pointed out earlier probably the only real operational advantage the B-24 had over the Lanc (The second pilot), especially when nursing a shot up plane back home or when attempting to shoot an early beam approach in the fog - probably more hazardous than the actual mission.

Thats what a lot of these PTO bomb group histories keep mentioning. Crappy weather over vast stretches of ocean and jungle, without nav aids, and treacherous mountains to watch out for.

Can you imagine the strain on the pilot and copilot flying on three engines, 1300 miles from base, with multiple weather fronts to penetrate and nothing but water, jungle and enemy soldiers underneath you. And then your approach pattern to the airfield means you have to watch for sinister cloud enshrouded mountains not to far away.