Lancaster Vs. B-24

Which was the better WWII bomber?

  • Total voters
    45

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I provided evidence that the B24 could be built in one hour.

The only evidence I saw for the Lanc was a few per day.

Since the British and US industrial engineers were just as smart as each other, theres no other explanation for the faster assembly of thye B24.

The 1944 and 1945 production rates of the Lancs should have been far higher than what they were.
 
Just because you can 'build' (should really be assemble) it in an hour doesn't mean it is easier to build. The USA had a huge number of people working on assembling the B-24 from it's components compare that to Britain who had a workforce that was at least a tenth of the size of America's and who where being bombed (something that the B-24 factories didn't risk). By 1944/45 Britain was running out of man-power, there were not enough people to do all the jobs that were needed (the infantry in particular). The British didn't very well to produce the number of Lancasters that they did (alongside other types - more than 20,000 Spitfires alone). Britain did not have the production capacity of the US and as result could not manufacture aircraft (any type) in as a large numbers or as quickly (at least for bombers). The number of people the USA devoted to building aircraft was huge compared to the UK and as a result the number of bombers was more (a lot more) and the time it took to assemble them was less as well, it is all part and parcel of having a huge (almost inexhausible) workforce. You have not provided concrete evidence that a B-24 is easier to build than a Lancaster, just because the took less time over each individual unit and more where built doesn't mean it was easier to build, it means you have a larger workforce (and maybe more efficient production techniques) but not an easier bomber to built.
 
If I can offer another reason. The UK wasn't increasing the production capacity of the Lancaster as it tooling up and preparing for the production of the Lancaster MkIV renamed the Lincon. Massive preperations were going into the mass production of that aircraft in the UK, Canada and Australia to ensure that it was ready for use in the Tiger force against Japan.

This has been mentioned before syscom without comment from yourself.

Also we had to use shadow factories and didn't have secure supplies, communications, power, raw marterials, spare machine tool capacity and couldn't afford the exposure of a production line as it was too vulnerable to attack.

Again this has been mentioned before without comment from yourself although this time you did reply and ducked the points.

You haven't proved that you could build a plane in an hour that is obviously rubbish. You can complete a plan an hour but not build one in an hour.

Others have proved that the B24 was buit in a more productive manner and you don't see the obvious logic in that.

In short you have proved nothing to anyone.
 
Willow Run built a B24 per hour. Are you denying that? (Im saying 60 minuts is more or less 56 minutes in the scheme of things).

The Lincoln was more or less a beefed up Lanc? Right?

And in 1943, the UK was not subject to the mass bomb raids of 1940 and 1941.

And your "shadow" factories would still be nearby the assembly plant(s).
 
Boys this is all very well, but I have to ask. What the hell do production numbers have to do with the merits of the bomber itself? I thought this was supposed to be about the aircraft themselves, not so much the numbers produced. We're becoming bogged down with reasons why each nation could produce a certain number in a given period.

The B-24 served in every theatre of the war, but the Lancaster would have served in the PTO had the war dragged on a little longer. It was already in the works. Nothing hypothetical about it, it would have been there and it would have even had improvements. I happen to agree that the Liberator was an overall superb bomber, but to disqualify the Lancaster just because it didn't actually serve in the Pacific is a bit ridiculous as far as I'm concerned. It's akin to calling the F-4 Phantom superior to the F-22 just because of the F-4's actual combat record. It doesn't really prove anything one way or the other, and it's meaningless.


My god, I think this is the first time I've ever actually tried to steer a thread back on topic!

I think maybe I'd better lay down.
 
syscom3 said:
I provided evidence that the B24 could be built in one hour.
Click to expand...

One rolled out the door each hour - after being assembled - the subassemblies took at least a week to build, I would guess there were 5 or 6 of them comprising the B-24 (just like any other WW2 bomber)

Faster to build - YES Easier to build NO - you turn a bolt and drive a rivet the same way, the B-24 had the set up to do it the most efficently, but even then it wasn't 100% perfect....
 
The B24 was either by good fortune or by design, to be easily mass produced. I havent really looked at in detail the B17 center section, but there was somehting different between the two that favored the B24 for mass production.
 
syscom3 said:
The B24 was either by good fortune or by design, to be easily mass produced. I havent really looked at in detail the B17 center section, but there was somehting different between the two that favored the B24 for mass production.
Click to expand...

Yes - Ford Motor Company designing a 1 1/2 mile production line around the aircraft!

Actually in the history of aircraft manufacturing, very few aircraft had that luxury, especially for an aircraft that was already in production...
 
sys it proves nothing, willow run alone emplyed more people than the entire A.V. Roe production group! go back to my toilet seat example, and almost anything can be mass produced, no matter what it is, especailly if you have a 1 1/2 mile assembly line

i'm with everyone else, you're the one that started the whole easier to build stuff, but let's get back to the lanc's statistical superiority.........
 
syscom said:
One of them is the Lanc experts
Click to expand...

if you meant me i never claimed to be a lancaster expert at all, i know i have allot more to learn, it's jsut that i know more than most

didnt have any information about the production untill I made them go dig up the info
Click to expand...

ok so i didn't know the figures off memory, what does that prove? everyone here uses books no one's gonna say the B-24's better because i had to use a book
 
statistics can prove anything. I was looking at your figures and its comparing apples to oranges.

A better statistical comparison would be B24 and Lanc stats for night missions and B24 and lanc stats for day missions.

Now back to the production details. The simple fact is the Lanc was built by twice as many factories as the B24, yet only produced less than 1/2 of them. And all those factories building the lanc were geographically close to each other (except the Canadian plant).

It doesnt matter if the Willow Run plant was 1.5 miles long. It could have easily been split up into smaller buildings and still be able to produce the same number of aircraft.
 
You boys are really stuck on this production debate, aren't ya? There's not much to discuss really. The US had the most production going in every area, employing the most economical methods. Short 'n sweet if you ask me.
 
syscom3 said:
It doesnt matter if the Willow Run plant was 1.5 miles long. It could have easily been split up into smaller buildings and still be able to produce the same number of aircraft.
Click to expand...

Yes it does - inside these large buildings Architechs need to set up pillars and columns to support the roof. It it's designed around an aircraft configuration (size) you have more floor space to configure assembly. That's why Lockheed had to build plant 10 in Palmdale, there was nothing in Burbank to support the size of the then new jet. Notice how plant to has one set a pillars down the middle. One side of the line assembled the fuselage barrels, flightstation and tail, the wings were built at an outside supplier and shipped in and assembled at a specific station. Final assembly ran up the other side of the building....





Boeing had to do the same thing for the 747 assembly line



You need to be able to flow sub assemblies into their "station." Willow run was successful because all of the sub assembly movement was designed around the aircraft and then the building designed around that!





Unless you are talking about a substantial difference in size there is no difference in driving rivets into a B-24, -17 or Lancaster, it was a matter of resources, people and production efficiency that determined the production numbers...
 
Nonskimmer said:
You boys are really stuck on this production debate, aren't ya? There's not much to discuss really. The US had the most production going in every area, employing the most economical methods. Short 'n sweet if you ask me.
Click to expand...

I agree! Although its fun showing this to someone who never built an airplane before.... 8)
 
If the Lanc was as easy to build, then they should have been able to build them faster. You would see the production blocks being completed sooner, and then output drop as subassemblies are used up.

And its still irrelevent whether Willow Run was 1.5 miles long or a series of buildings of shorter lenghts. The sub assemblies could be built anywhere and brought in by truck or train, when it was needed.
 
syscom3 said:
If the Lanc was as easy to build, then they should have been able to build them faster. You would see the production blocks being completed sooner, and then output drop as subassemblies are used up.
Click to expand...
I never said easier - my point is the same as far as producibility and assembler skill. The B-24 was superior in numbers because of resources and production planning.
syscom3 said:
And its still irrelevent whether Willow Run was 1.5 miles long or a series of buildings of shorter lenghts. The sub assemblies could be built anywhere and brought in by truck or train, when it was needed.
Click to expand...
And that is exactly how it is done, but how long to you think it takes to build say the nose section of a B-24 as a sub assembly? You can't build it in a machine (If there were limited internal structure a machine called a drivematic cane be used) it has to be located in an assembly jig and because of the size there is a space restriction on how many bodies can effectively assemble the thing. Two weeks per sub assembly and that's pushing it...

Oh it would be the same for the Lancaster.....
 
If you have all the componants needed to build a sub assembly, it can be built in no time at all. Theres nothing complicated at all about the assembly. You can even send to the assembly line partially completed sub assemblies that are at least structurally complete (hold up the final assembly line cause the nose turret isnt available?).

If the sub assembly is small enough, smaller feeder factories can build them according to the production requirements. If Willow Run needed "x" number of Rudder assemblies made each day, then its just a matter of how many jigs and people are needed. If the factory is "x" miles away, then all they have to do is just factor in the transport time and deliver it when its needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

  • Poll
AH-4 Apache vs black hawk
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
7K
Thumpalumpacus
M
  • Poll
Which one is overall better between Ta-152H and P-47M/N?
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
_PabloSniper_
K
  • Poll
P-40F vs P-40M
Replies
1
Views
1K
mjfur
M
A
Best British single engined radial aircraft in WW2?
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
2K
SaparotRob
Menu
Log in
Register