Lancaster Vs. B-24

[syscom3]

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

You keep making assumptions about that.

Ever heard of cross country plane rides in "cessna's?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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

Sys give it up, that 's been beat to death - Any WW2 aircraft if given the resources could of been produced like the B-24 and we shown that previously. the only reason why the B-24 was able to be produced in such quantities was the foresight of Rubin Fleet to team up with Ford and to have Charles Sorenson run the whole program....

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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.

Which if the Lanc had served in the PTO it would have been equipped with the second pilot station which was a rather easy modification for the Lanc. The Lanc did not serve in the PTO during the war as the B-24 did and therefore the only think we can truely use to compare the 2 aircraft is the ETO. Therefore the Lancaster is better than the B-24. Get over it.

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

The Lancaster did just fine in the ETO and the Luftwaffe fighters were much more of a threat than the Japanese fighters. Proven fact that the Luftwaffe had better tactics and better aircraft.

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

As FBJ said it, you are beating the dead horse again because you have run out of arguements.

The B-24 was able to be built in larger numbers because of the US industrial capacity. That does not make the B-24 a better aircraft than the Lancaster when you are comparing the aircraft not the production methods!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You keep making assumptions about that.

Ever heard of cross country plane rides in "cessna's?

Yeah over California with lit up cities every mile.

 

[ndicki]

And that b*lls about superior firepower we've also already dealt with - the FE type Lancs carried .50 cal Brownings and even 20mm cannon in the MU turret.

 

[ndicki]

Furthermore, it'd be interesting to look at survivability after receiving significant damage. Lancs could - and often did - hold the air on two engines. Start there, and work back to things like losing tailplanes, elevators, ailerons, etc. I think you'll find that the Lanc remained controllable after a higher degree of damage than the Liberator.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

even with almost every light in the city on it's a struggle to see some cities from long ranges, the best way to spot a city is to set it ablaze but as i've said the B-24's crews managed to navigate so there's no reason why the lanc crews, with superior electronic aids (flying over water crews would be given a lot more of the sophisticated equiptment as its impossible to retrive from the bottom of the ocean... unless the japanese did simulated dives in a swimming pool, hey sys ) wouldn't be able to navigate just as well so why is it we're arging about this?

yes sys the two pilots is an advantage to the B-24 however the fitting of a second pilot's control set was a fairly easy and very much a standard modification (not in the sense it was widely done but officially reconised).........

and did all those guns really help the B-24? was she impervious to japanese fighters? no, the japanese fighters were no more a threat than the German ones, less so in fact, and remember it's a bomber's job to deliver bombs to the target, the lanc delivered more bombs to any range than the B-24 period! what's more some lancs were carrying .50cals by the end of the war, and the FE models were planned to be fitted with .50cals............

so are you gonna come up with anything new or do we play the same broken record over and over?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

so are you gonna come up with anything new or do we play the same broken record over and over?

 

[ndicki]

Must admit, we do seem to have to keep saying the same things again and again. Perhaps they're not being read.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I happen to agree with you there ndicki.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It goes with the saying "I give you books and you eat the covers."

 

[syscom3]

Yeah over California with lit up cities every mile.

See, you keep making assumptions.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

See, you keep making assumptions.

Well where? Just about any point on the west coast it lit up well enough to give enough reference on any given night with no weather obscurities. Even out in Eastern Colorado or Western Nebraska there is still enough lights to make pilotage and DR go together without being that challenging.

With that said - using DR during WW2 was a little different. Aircraft were at altitude, flying a lot faster than most GA aircraft and had the jet stream and more adverse weather to deal with. Unless you really stayed on top of your game, you could get very lost very quick, hence the term "NAVIGUSSER."

 

[syscom3]

On our cross country trips across the SW, he (my friend who was a instructor pilot that was transporting small aircraft) gave me a map and told me to practice some basic trigonometry.

It didnt matter if I could identify our route by the cities, as I had to prove to him through compass heading, windage and elapsed time where we were.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

On our cross country trips across the SW, he (my friend who was a instructor pilot that was transporting small aircraft) gave me a map and told me to practice some basic trigonometry.

It didnt matter if I could identify our route by the cities, as I had to prove to him through compass heading, windage and elapsed time where we were.

Try doing that at 20,000 feet, @ 230 knots with no winds aloft information...

 

[Emac44]

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.

National pride maybe. Indebt for Millions upon millions of Pound Sterling more of a case. England used the aircraft she had on hand for her own defense capabilities post war time up until the early and late 1960s sys. It wasn't until 1978 that England managed to pay of her lend lease debts to the USA. Look up the term LEND LEASE. IT MEANS YOU BORROW IT AND PAY LATER. So it would make practical and common sense for a country so indebted to another financialy to use her own equipment and aircraft on hand then continue to buy aircraft from the country you owe money too on a lend lease scheme

 

[Emac44]

Try doing that at 20,000 feet, @ 230 knots with no winds aloft information...

also in total darkness and being shot at during the evaluation of the flight. with what limited training of 6 months to be trained as a qualified navigator because of the high rate of crews being lost in battle and high attrition rate of crews. flying in europe in war time in my opinion bit different from flying across peace time USA countryside. Not unless the city gang thugs in the USA have stepped up their anti social behaviour and all qualified as pilots

 

[FLYBOYJ]

also in total darkness and being shot at during the evaluation of the flight. with what limited training of 6 months to be trained as a qualified navigator because of the high rate of crews being lost in battle and high attrition rate of crews. flying in europe in war time in my opinion bit different from flying across peace time USA countryside. Not unless the city gang thugs in the USA have stepped up their anti social behaviour and all qualified as pilots

Only over LA or Washington DC....

 

[Emac44]

You are a funny man Flyboy. by the way at moment reading the Log Book from the Navigator who was in my father's crew who were in a Lancaster Squadron. From his accounts in the Log Book and him informing myself and other members of our family over many years prior to my father passing away. This Navigator didn't have it as easy as some are claiming flying over wartime Europe. Perhaps some do not realize the situation for a Navigator in Europe during WW2 was perilous and same for Navigators in SW Pacific. Same inherit danger. Sys maybe you need to come to realization war is confusing to the senses and there is a vast difference navigating in peace time to navigating during wartime. You are a smart man sys work it out for your self. The crews performed their duties to the best of their abilities. saying one did better or comparing the different war zones they found themselves in is silly and niave to the extreme. You are trying to compare war in the Pacific to War in the European theatre. You are hair splitting sys Lancaster Sterling Halifax Crews faced the same dangers as b25 b29 b17 aircrews had done just in different war zones and at times of day. Being shot at is still being shot at sys regardless of time of day or geographic region or what aircraft they were using. And to this i think you are marginally missing the point. As your posts seems to suggest RAF crews had it easy over Europe. They certainly didn't have it easy sys. I will now give you the casuality rate for RAAF crews in Europe and pacific regions and other areas.

Europe 5,504 KIA 969 injured total 6473
Pacific 3,527 KIA 1,706 injured total 5,233
Middle East 1,132 KIA injured 473 total 1,545
India Burma 247 KIA 89 injured total 336
Canada Training 145 (Accident Death ) 54 injured total 199
Far East 138 KIA 46 injured total 184
Other areas 61 KIA 13 injured total 74

Total RAAF loses for Killed in action or training
10,754
Total RAAF personal injured
3,290
Overall total RAAF personal Killed or Injured
14,044
Also remember that the RAAF had the worlds 4th largest volunteer airforce at the time in compared with our population at the time. Total enlistments for RAAF during war 189,700 men 27,200 women who joined the WAAAF, but the majority of deaths and injury occured in the European area sys also take into account the middle east and north african region casuality rates were high for aircrew in European theatre of operation
this is just one Allied airforce Numbers. i haven't the numbers for british canadian french russian or US allies airforces but can imagine much higher in comparison. given those accounts on casualties sys was it easier in Europe to the Pacific. no it wasn't the casuality rates in Pacific and Asia was just as horrific. so stop splitting hairs sys because i feel that is what you are doing

 

[Emac44]

another site you may find interest sys and they do have actual war time footage in this site for aircrews is the Australian War Memorial in Canberra Australia . i suggest you go and have a look sys it may enlighten you to what actually occured. some of the footage is actual bombing mission by aircrews during wartime and comes from courtesy of Imperial War Musuem England

sorry had to edit part of the post www.awm.com.au