Lancaster Vs. B-24

[syscom3]

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.

Not true. Youre comnparing apples with banana's.

The Lanc and B24 were "peers".

The above mentioned fighters were jet propelled, thus a magnitude better than the B24 or Lanc.

And people here have produced evidence that the F4U might have been the best fighter in the PTO.

 

[syscom3]

.....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that it was in fact an inferior type, as the RAF continued to use aircraft types in SEAC long after they had been withdrawn from service in Bomber Command.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.

No doubt the Lanc had advantages over the B24 in the ETO, and thus was superior.

But in the PTO some B24 charchteristics were superior over the Lanc.

And once the USAAF had the B29's (and soon, the B50's) in quantity, there was no reason to use obsolete airframes like B17/B24/Lanc/Blenheim/Wellington.

So there.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

No doubt the Lanc had advantages over the B24 in the ETO, and thus was superior.

But in the PTO some B24 charchteristics were superior over the Lanc.

And once the USAAF had the B29's (and soon, the B50's) in quantity, there was no reason to use obsolete airframes like B17/B24/Lanc/Blenheim/Wellington.

So there.

The Blenhien and Wellington were well obsolete before the war's end. The B-24 was not economical operationally and was harder to train on and fly than the B-17, that's why something like 8000 of them were scrapped between Sept. 1945 and May of 1946. The B-17 and Lanc stayed on scene for a number of years because of their ease of operation and longevity - the B-24 disappeared quicker than a condom in a Bangkok whore house once the war ended!!!

 

[ndicki]

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.

Not to mention the radars, Bf110gs, He219s, Do217s, Wilde Sau Bf109s, the predicted FlaK, searchlights and the added danger of being in the middle of a stream of some 300 - 400 other aircraft that you can't see. And fog when you get back.

And the only reason that the Lanc/Lincoln was not used had nothing to do with its obsolescence - rather with the fact that Japan surrendered before they could be deployed.

The final Lancaster derivative, the Avro Shackleton, was withdrawn from RAF service in 1991! The SAAF had retired its Shacks in 1984, primarily as a result of the inavailability of parts.

The final user of the Lancaster was the French Naval Air service, which withdrew them in 1962.

 

[Nonskimmer]

The final user of the Lancaster was the French Naval Air service, which withdrew them in 1962.

The RCAF didn't retire it's last Lancs until 1964.

Awesome pics.

 

[ndicki]

I stand corrected!

The RCAF taught my father to fly, back in the old days, at 30 EFTS at Assiniboia and 33 SFTS at Carberry. His photo album from 1942-3 is entitled "Memories of Happy Days"! says it all!

 

[Nonskimmer]

Good stuff! Here's an old Air Force one of my grandad from about 1940-41 or so. I think it was taken in Borden, Ontario. Could be wrong about that. I'll have to check.

Maybe they crossed paths at one time or another. Who knows?

 

[ndicki]

Could very well have done - the Air Works isn't that big a place, even then. Did he make it over to this side of the Pond?

 

[Nonskimmer]

Yep. He flew a Lanc with No.6 Bomber Group, and a Halifax for a bit as well.

 

[ndicki]

Figures. Mine did a tour with 5 Group, then a bit of flight testing, and as he didn't like that, got into the Glider Pilot Regt in time for Varsity. After that, it was trash-hauling in a Dakota until he was sent to do recruiting in Swansea in 1946!

 

[Emac44]

not to many high mountains in pacific countries where aircrews were stationed in the pacific with only a few exceptions being PNG (Papua New Guinea) Owen Stanley region. and these were short missions as 2 engine bombers were used for example beuafighters and beuaforts used by RAAF single engine fighters as well like spitfires hurricanes and kittyhawks etc. But if you are referring to other pacific islands not seen to many with exceptionally high mountains to bother aircrews as you are claiming. and the only island i can think of in pacific with high mountain would be iwo jima. unless you are referring to aircrews flying the hump being the himalayian mountains but this is in asia and not part of the pacific. transport fighter and bomber squadrons also had routes via himalayas. but i seem to remember when it came to B29 crews trying to bomb Japan from this locality it was accord to be a failure. not due to crews or bombers but by sheer logistics alone because of vast distances and lack of supplies and logistics. all said and done flying over europe in total darkness with primitive naviagation aids compared to today standards with anti aircraft fire and search lights coming up at you plus with the threat of constant night fighters with primitive radar detection system that had successes. i would compare both flying over europe day or night or flying over pacific islands or asia as equally hazardous to air crews. me thinks you are making moutains out of mole hills or either that playing devil's advocate just because you can to see what reaction you get to this i believe its just a game to you and you are stirring the pot hahaha
Syscom this is what i believe you are doing just stirring the pot so to speak

 

[Kiwikid]

The B-24 Liberator was a good plane, undoubtedly, with good range etc, but it had some real flaws. The speed governor on it's propellors were notorious for failure at take off causing overspeed and engine fires with props separating from the engine.

This wasn't only at take off... Just that this was the most critical moment. If it happened en-route to target the B-24 would fall out of formation and immediately fall prey to fighters away from the protection of box formation. I don't think they would have been popular with crews for that reason.

Normally if you lose an engine, that's fine. You just limp home on three, but over Europe in daylight that was a death sentence.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The B-24 Liberator was a good plane, undoubtedly, with good range etc, but it had some real flaws. The speed governor on it's propellors were notorious for failure at take off causing overspeed and engine fires with props separating from the engine.

The failures happened because of the Curtiss electric propellers which would go flat during take off (many other aircraft had the same problem as the propeller hub was used on a wide variety of propeller models). I have an uncle who was the only survivor of a 12 man crew which had a prop failure.

This wasn't only at take off... Just that this was the most critical moment. If it happened en-route to target the B-24 would fall out of formation and immediately fall prey to fighters away from the protection of box formation. I don't think they would have been popular with crews for that reason.

Normally if you lose an engine, that's fine. You just limp home on three, but over Europe in daylight that was a death sentence.

The B-24 had very poor engine out performance period, mainly because of the thin Davis Airfoil. When all four engines were turning the wing was very efficient and was one of the reasons why the B-24 was faster than the B-17 and had a greater range, loose an engine and the aircraft started becoming a brick.

 

[k9kiwi]

SOOOO

The Lanc WAS better than the B-24 in the PTO.

It could get home on one engine.

Now where did I leave that trench to take cover in.

 

[syscom3]

Tthe B-24 disappeared quicker than a condom in a Bangkok whore house once the war ended!!!

 

[syscom3]

And the only reason that the Lanc/Lincoln was not used had nothing to do with its obsolescence - rather with the fact that Japan surrendered before they could be deployed.

We had another thread that showed the B29 and B50 were both far more advanced than the Lincoln. Both the Lanc and Lincoln were outclassed by Aug 1945, although the Lincoln had enough potential to be usefull for a year or so longer.

 

[syscom3]

not to many high mountains in pacific countries where aircrews were stationed in the pacific with only a few exceptions being PNG (Papua New Guinea) Owen Stanley region.

The Owens Stanley's were impediments for all aircraft throughout the war. Even after the war ended, planes were still dissapearing ito the mountains. The islands of the Halmereah's and Celebes had high enough mountains that made navigation over them dicey.

and these were short missions as 2 engine bombers were used for example beuafighters and beuaforts used by RAAF single engine fighters as well like spitfires hurricanes and kittyhawks etc.

The raids against Balikpapen in 1943 and 1944 were of 1300-1600 mile missions, one way. The there were the raids from the PI against Vietnam that were long enough to as not have fighter escort. There simply were not enough P38 groups available to cover every missions.

But if you are referring to other pacific islands not seen to many with exceptionally high mountains to bother aircrews as you are claiming. and the only island i can think of in pacific with high mountain would be iwo jima.

I'm, not referring to those islands. Although, I would like to point out that the PI has some impressive mountains in the north.

all said and done flying over europe in total darkness with primitive naviagation aids compared to today standards with anti aircraft fire and search lights coming up at you plus with the threat of constant night fighters with primitive radar detection system that had successes. i would compare both flying over europe day or night or flying over pacific islands or asia as equally hazardous to air crews. me thinks you are making moutains out of mole hills or either that playing devil's advocate just because you can to see what reaction you get to this i believe its just a game to you and you are stirring the pot hahaha

The missions over Europe were simpler from a navigation standpoint. If you got lost, you just had to fly west and dead reckoning would put you over the UK. If you had the "balls" to go low enough, you could pick out geographic features to get an approx. fix. In the PTO, you didnt have that luxury. The jungle and ocean all looks the same. And the jungle was bad enough that even if you crash landed a couple dozen miles from your base, survival was still dicey.

Syscom this is what i believe you are doing just stirring the pot so to speak

I never stir the pot. I make people prove their points beyond a doubt.

 

[Emac44]

The Owens Stanley's were impediments for all aircraft throughout the war. Even after the war ended, planes were still dissapearing ito the mountains. The islands of the Halmereah's and Celebes had high enough mountains that made navigation over them dicey.



The raids against Balikpapen in 1943 and 1944 were of 1300-1600 mile missions, one way. The there were the raids from the PI against Vietnam that were long enough to as not have fighter escort. There simply were not enough P38 groups available to cover every missions.



I'm, not referring to those islands. Although, I would like to point out that the PI has some impressive mountains in the north.



The missions over Europe were simpler from a navigation standpoint. If you got lost, you just had to fly west and dead reckoning would put you over the UK. If you had the "balls" to go low enough, you could pick out geographic features to get an approx. fix. In the PTO, you didnt have that luxury. The jungle and ocean all looks the same. And the jungle was bad enough that even if you crash landed a couple dozen miles from your base, survival was still dicey.



I never stir the pot. I make people prove their points beyond a doubt.

now put simply you are considering that balkippan was in the same context as say and other island groups you mentioned are mostly formed parts of the arufua sea south china seas and philippines seas. balkippan is also part of indonesia as well as the celebes island group and are in indian ocean sea area of operation and not considered to be part of pacific. as these areas are more definable by day light and by naviagation it would be considerabley more easier for a good naviagator to pick out points of reference during day light hours then it would for a good navigator to pick up points of reference in total darkness over as land mass pinported with anti aircraft search light and night fighters to harass you over the entire trip. as for your reference to aircraft being lost in Papua New Guinea Owen Stanleys that is correct. Yet you forgot that over Dutch Coastal areas allied and axis aircraft have been lost never to be found and this was on flat coastal terrain and your point is. How those aircraft became lost is either to battle damage or other reasons. the point being you haven't proved one bit a b25 is any better than an avro Lancaster or the crews being better. You have just gone on rhetoric with your head in the sand. Lancasters didn't serve in the Pacific War but served in Air war in Europe and as such were proved to be versitile in their use to the RAF and her Commonwealth Air Forces. I am getting definite impression from you if it isn't from the US then it isn't any good. Well unfortunately and I will be blunt. If i am correct in what i am thinking then your attitude needs adjusting some what towards allies as the RAF and Commonwealth Allied Airforces performed the duties with the equipment they were given. as for your last part of your posting you haven't proved anything. Just rhetoric. as for others posting their replies i tend to take their view point that you are being an *** to the extreme

 

[syscom3]

now put simply you are considering that balkippan was in the same context as say and other island groups you mentioned are mostly formed parts of the arufua sea south china seas and philippines seas. balkippan is also part of indonesia as well as the celebes island group and are in indian ocean sea area of operation and not considered to be part of pacific.

They were considered part of the PTO. In WW2, the dutch east Indies were considered as part of the PTO for planning and operations. Even the Aleution's were considered part of the PTO.

as these areas are more definable by day light and by naviagation it would be considerabley more easier for a good naviagator to pick out points of reference during day light hours then it would for a good navigator to pick up points of reference in total darkness over as land mass pinported with anti aircraft search light and night fighters to harass you over the entire trip.

The missions in Europe were shorter and there were plenty of land masses to take a fix. And the one big drawback of operating over the ocean without nav aids is how easy it is to get lost.

.....Yet you forgot that over Dutch Coastal areas allied and axis aircraft have been lost never to be found and this was on flat coastal terrain and your point is How those aircraft became lost is either to battle damage or other reasons.

The aircraft lost in the Dutch Coastal regions were due to battle damage, not because an aircraft got lost in a cloud and flew into a mountain.

the point being you haven't proved one bit a b25 is any better than an avro Lancaster or the crews being better. You have just gone on rhetoric with your head in the sand. Lancasters didn't serve in the Pacific War but served in Air war in Europe and as such were proved to be versitile in their use to the RAF and her Commonwealth Air Forces. I am getting definite impression from you if it isn't from the US then it isn't any good. Well unfortunately and I will be blunt. If i am correct in what i am thinking then your attitude needs adjusting some what towards allies as the RAF and Commonwealth Allied Airforces performed the duties with the equipment they were given. as for your last part of your posting you haven't proved anything. Just rhetoric. as for others posting their replies i tend to take their view point that you are being an *** to the extreme

I have said the Lanc was the better of the two in the ETO. And I found the proof by myself and not by what others said. Now just because the Lanc was better in Europe doesnt mean it was better in the Pacific. Just like the P51 was the best long range allied fighter in Europe doesnt mean it was the best in the PTO either.

And I have never said that the Lanc was inferior because of the crew or eqmt. Now show me where in the past 3809 posts where I said such a thing.

And its pretty early for a newbie to call me an ******* when obviously you havent read even a tiny fraction of the many threads of contributed to this forum.

Now thicken your skin, debate the issues and dont namecall. It makes you look like a schmuck.

 

[Kiwikid]

Thanks FlyboyJ ... It wasn't just me who thought that. The early C-130A/B Hercules had the same problems with Curtiss propellors.