Lancaster Vs. B-24

syscom3 said:

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.

Click to expand...

No syscom, absolutely not. Using your logic it does not matter. Any aircraft that flew in the PTO was superior than the ETO aircraft. Maybe you need to word your feeble arguements better.

That makes no sense since the Luftwaffe is proven more deadly than the Japanese airforce and navy aircraft.

Besides the Lanc had to deal with the Luftwaffe night fighters which were very deadly and advanced.

syscom3 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Have you ever tried to deadreckon nave an aircraft in total darkness. It aint as easy as you think it is, especially when all the lights of the cities are blacked out.

Have some experience in the topic before you call something easy...

syscom3 said:

If you had the "balls" to go low enough, you could pick out geographic features to get an approx. fix.

Click to expand...

Not at night you cant. Those features that you pic out, you fly into them before you can pick them out if you are low eneogh. Ive got plenty of low level experience in Europe at night and I dont think the features have changed much since 1943.

syscom3 said:

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

Click to expand...

Yeah for the most part you do make some interesting conversations and that is why I like you, but you have to admit you are very very biassed.

But thats a combined night/day rate

Click to expand...

no no i can assure you it's not, the combined day/night rate is something like 2.4%, for the lanc's 40,000+ daylight missions the loss rate was 0.7% ................


i can't really quote much more from the last couple of pages because you haven't been debating anything particularly relivant, yes there are mountains in the PTO, but one of the novelties of an aircraft is that you can go over or around them, they would be no more a problem for the lanc as the B-24

next is this crap about navigation, are you claiming the lanc wouldn't be able to operate in the PTO because you can't navigate in a lanc but you can in a B-24 bigger map table is there there was no problems with RAF navigation, if you can navigate your way in a B-24 you can do it in a lanc as well so why're we arguing about this

and syscom we've proved our points over and over, the only reason you can give for the lanc not being able to operate in the PTO was the fact she didn't have a co-pilot, which as we have discussed is easily fixable, other than that the lancaster was a supperior bomber in terms of load carrying and range so why couldn't she operate in the PTO?

And if the Lincoln - and therefore the Shack - were already out of date before they even entered servoce, why did the RAF chuck the Washington at the first possible opportunity?

Actually, Lancs as a whole had a far better navigation and radar defence suite ( K2S, Gee, LORAN, Oboe, Monica, etc) than American aircraft because they had to navigate individually to the target and back, rather than in a big herd like the USAAF by day.

And if you feel that that somehow makes the Liberator a better crate, I really do not see why.

syscom3 said:

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.



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.



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.




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.

Click to expand...

i do appologise for calling you an ***. however i have read most of your post and such. however you seem to think flying in wartime Europe was a walk in the park. it definitely wasn't a walk in the park at all. and some of those aircraft posted missing on the dutch coast which have never been found there is no record for the reason as to why they disappeared at all. battle damage maybe one reason there maybe a myriad of reason as to why aircraft go missing. if the lancaster was to be used in the pacific it would have been done in a way that suited the purposes it was to be used for. seeing it wasn't there is no debate. yet the lancaster was modified to suit purposes that it had to meet. I seem to remember reading about recon aircraft being posted as missing in europe that only recently they recovered along with pilot. europe of all places not a jungle in sight yet pilot and aircraft missing.

the pacific in itself was a different style of warfare. mostly fought over water and between islands etc but hazardous in itself. and had its subsquent dangers. like the japanese executing shot down allied servicemen etc or jungle dieseases if crew came down over land etc. however allied servicemen often faced similar aspects if shot down over german or occupied territory. countless times allied airmen were either shot after bailing out by either german patrols or townsfolk themselves or by the gestapo and especially the gestapo who were infamous in their treatment of prisoners of war

now another area you are ignoring RAF bomber crews if you hadn't realised had already down the england to italy leg on numerous occassions. these were done by crews flying short sterlings and lancasters to turin. not an insignificant flying time or distance by any means and returning to base. 617 squadron also flew from southern european russia to complete bombing missions over tirpitz and return back to england not an insignificant feat in mileage at all. and the mediterrian campaign with also the north african airwar. easy to get lost over desert from the air then water with no points of reference either syns. but you are trying to compare it was easier in europe then it was in pacific. it simply wasn't the case for either theatre of operations syns. the same concurrent dangers occured the same possiblity of not returning from mission was there and the same avenues could befall aircrews no matter where they were fighting. and this is the point most people are trying to make to you. the total allied crews lost in the european air war was comparable in ratio during 1942 to 1945 as 3 months on the somme battlefield in WW1 and casualities on that battlefield. its something you seem to be missing this point casuality rates in european air war were staggering in comparison to other areas. this included all casualities from all allied airforces operating in europe. as it wasn't just british (commonwealth)or american airmen dying but also french and russian and if you add numbers of axis pilots lost the number increases dramatically. and the consquent damage these raids had on european countries themselves, germany for example was systematically raised to the ground from one major city and town to the next and it wasn't always strategic in the reasons why a city was selected for targetting. for example dresden in 1945. was bombed not just for it being a transport junction but was bombed for political reason as it has been claimed old joe stalin wanted it done. nurumberg was targetted for what reason syns industrial no political yes. same as berlin itself not for industrial but for political reasons on its own. same as munich and several other cities. can same be said about air war in pacific. yes tokyo was bombed but was the imperial palace nope. could the emperor of japan been a target at the time and low level b29 strikes were occuring. was the USAF navigation that bad over tokyo they couldn't find their way to that part of the city. was the bomb aimer that bad in a b29 that the bombing of the palace couldn't have been done and put the emperors life at peril. after all it was total war and according to you it was somewhat more difficult in the pacific. maybe if it was left to 617 squadron to scratch the emperor of the list as a target it would have been done with no questions as to why not. yet the reichstag in berlin was obliterated and every other building within a radius of 5 miles of the place was flattened. i know tokyo and most other japanese cities were levelled yet some how imperial palace was left alone. and emperor was never a serious target. but we all know german and other axis leaders were always targetted regardless. one wonders why the difference sysn

and what's more sys stop just putting one quote in each post put them all in one post it's a lame way for you to get your posts up so you can act all high and mighty to the new guys, and on the subject of new guys, you don't have to bother you're only repeating everything that's been said before, so am i really but i suggest you read through all the other countless times we've had this debate for a bit..........

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Have you ever tried to deadreckon nave an aircraft in total darkness. It aint as easy as you think it is, especially when all the lights of the cities are blacked out.

Have some experience in the topic before you call something easy...



Not at night you cant. Those features that you pic out, you fly into them before you can pick them out if you are low eneogh. Ive got plenty of low level experience in Europe at night and I dont think the features have changed much since 1943.



Yeah for the most part you do make some interesting conversations and that is why I like you, but you have to admit you are very very biassed.

Click to expand...

at last some one said the biased word tsk tsk tsk Adler

the lancaster kicks *** said:

and what's more sys stop just putting one quote in each post put them all in one post it's a lame way for you to get your posts up so you can act all high and mighty to the new guys, and on the subject of new guys, you don't have to bother you're only repeating everything that's been said before, so am i really but i suggest you read through all the other countless times we've had this debate for a bit..........

Click to expand...

its ok Kick i can look after myself in a debate. i admit i shouldn't have called sysc an *** but to me he was coming off as one. my opinion only and sysc i appologise for calling you an ***, you schumack is much better hahaha

syscom3 said:

Click to expand...

must admit i like that quote myself. b25 was quicker to disappear then a condom in a bangkok whore house. now that is funny fly

Agreed with both things said by Lanc and Emac.

The arguements that you propose syscom have never proved anything and that has been said by everyone in this forum from myself, Lanc, FBJ,and now Emac.

They are just quatsch as Germans say it...

And if the Lincoln - and therefore the Shack - were already out of date before they even entered servoce, why did the RAF chuck the Washington at the first possible opportunity?

Click to expand...

Because of national pride.

And if you think the Lincoln was superior to the B29/B50, boy are you mistaken.

And so what about the Shackleford? Whoop de doo. The US had the B36 which was magnitudes better.

ndicki said:

Actually, Lancs as a whole had a far better navigation and radar defence suite ( K2S, Gee, LORAN, Oboe, Monica, etc) than American aircraft because they had to navigate individually to the target and back, rather than in a big herd like the USAAF by day.

And if you feel that that somehow makes the Liberator a better crate, I really do not see why.

Click to expand...

The USAAF ended up using them all. In 1945, some of them were standard installation for B24's going to the PTO.

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)

Click to expand...

Are you sure about the electric type props?

Only reference I've found is the use of Hamilton Standard hydraulic types.

syscom3 said:

Because of national pride.

Click to expand...

Like you are the one talk here...

syscom3 said:

And so what about the Shackleford? Whoop de doo. The US had the B36 which was magnitudes better.

Click to expand...

And the discussion is about the B-24 and Lancaster which clearly the Lancaster is more superior.

Better range
Better performance
Bigger bombload

The disadvantages of the Lancaster are outweighed by the advantages.

Have you ever tried to deadreckon nave an aircraft in total darkness. It aint as easy as you think it is, especially when all the lights of the cities are blacked out.

Have some experience in the topic before you call something easy...

Click to expand...

I've had experince doing it.

syscom3 said:

I've had experince doing it.

Click to expand...

Over Southern California?

syscom3 said:

Are you sure about the electric type props?

Only reference I've found is the use of Hamilton Standard hydraulic types.

Click to expand...

Some early B-24s had Curtiss Electric Propellers (B-24 Es)

syscom3 said:

I've had experince doing it.

Click to expand...

Yeah in a flight sim! That is no where near the same as the real thing buddy! You aint gonna die...

Like you are the one talk here...

Click to expand...

The reason the B24 was better than the Lanc in the PTO has nothing to do with national pride. If it was true, then i would have said it was also better than the Lanc in the ETO.

And the discussion is about the B-24 and Lancaster which clearly the Lancaster is more superior.

Better range
Better performance
Bigger bombload

Click to expand...

Which in the PTO, was offset by the B24's advantage's.
Pilot/Copilot setup - which reduced workload on the long long missions and flying in to the expected crappy weather particular to that part of the world.

Better defensive firepower - which gave it a better chance than the Lanc to fend off the Japanese fighters.

Superior assembly techniques and times which enabled the plane to be built by the 10's of thousands.