Lancaster Vs. B-24

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Just to add. If armament was added to the Lancaster then it's performance would start to fall and I think that would put it in the same category as the B-17/B-24.

I disagree. The small amount of the weight of the defensive armament compareed to the weight of the bombs it could carry would not have effected the performance as much as you think.

What you didn't see though was the Lancaster being used for the many different rolls that the B-24 was used for. The B-24 also served all over the world and in numbers compared to the Lancaster.

That is false. The Liberator was used in exactly the same ammount of roles and even maybe a few more than the Liberator.

 

[wmaxt]

I belive the weight difference would make a large difference. As an example the B-17G could carry 6,000lbs bombs 2,000mi. Eliminate the Waist gunners and chin turret which equal ~2,500/3,000lbs and you can easily add 500+mi range and 1,000+lbs of bombs which would match/exceed the Lancasters 2,400mi with 7,000lbs bombs. The B-17 could lose another 1,500+ if the ball turret were removed.

Rember these aircraft have esentialy the same min weight, gross weight and load capacity. The major restrictions to their load capacity are
1. Mission configuration
a. Day armor/defense
b. Night config for max bomb load
c. Marritime patrol

2. Fuel tankage
a. B-24 best
b. B-17 next, internal tankage 2,000+mi
c. Lancaster requires bombay tankage for 2,000+mi

3. Bombay configuration
a. Lancaster Best
b. B-24 next
c. B-17 in most restrictive

The mission configuration was critical to the weight capability of the various aircraft, the Lanc took this to an extream using a reduced crew, .30 caliber guns and virtualy no armor to allow a few more lbs of bombs. I personaly give the nod to the Lanc because of its huge bombay, not because of some percieved advantage anywhere else.

wmaxt

 

[syscom3]

I think the biggest limitation for the B17 was that the bomb bay volume was smaller than the others.

Even if it had all new engines, no guns or armour, it still was limited by the those dimensions.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dont think that the small ammount of defensive armament to be added to a Lancaster would lower the performance all that much. It already had a nose and tail turret and dorsal turret, all it needed was waist gunners and belly turret. Those 3 additions I think would have a minimal effect based on the payload wieght that it could carry. Those small additions would have been streamlined to reduce drag as well.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and exactily how much did the guns and armour on the B-17 and -24 weigh? remember .303 ammo's lighter than .50cal, you're only looking at fitting a few hundred lbs of armour and possibly a 1,000lb ventral turret, let's call it 1,500lbs all together? that's not much of a problem for a plane like the lanc........

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It may have lowered the ammount of payload a bit, but I dont think it would have made the performance suffer.

 

[Glider]

I would leave off the waist gunners, I don't think that they were worth the weight.

 

[syscom3]

Agree'd. Although in the PTO, the waist gunners were frequently used to watch for things in the air and ocean. If theyre going to be on board, might as well as give them some guns.

 

[wmaxt]

I dont think that the small ammount of defensive armament to be added to a Lancaster would lower the performance all that much. It already had a nose and tail turret and dorsal turret, all it needed was waist gunners and belly turret. Those 3 additions I think would have a minimal effect based on the payload wieght that it could carry. Those small additions would have been streamlined to reduce drag as well.

The Ball turret was about 1,200lbs + 200/250 for the gunner and his personal equiptment then 750 rds x 2 + oxygen + aircraft structure to support it. Similarly the waist gunners 250lbs ea. + personal eqpt (parachute, heated suite, etc) + mg +750rnds (typ)+ oxygen etc. call it 800/1,000lbs ea plus any armor for blind spots or fairings. Rough count 1,800/2,000lbs for a ball turret and 800/1,000 for each waist gun or about 3,600/4,000lbs total. that adds up to approximately 1 ton of bombs for an additional 200/400mi radius. That is signifigant to me.

SYS if you look at my post just above yours you'll see that I rated the B-17s bombay as the most restrictive and the huge bombay on the Lanc as its greatest feature.

wmaxt

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Okay in that sense youa re correct, I did not realize that it all weighed that much.

 

[Haztoys]

Just was wanting to know is ...

"What plane did the Germans 'feel' was EZer to bring (shot) down" The B-24 or the Lanc??

Thanks David

Hazardous Toys inc

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Just was wanting to know is ...

"What plane did the Germans 'feel' was EZer to bring (shot) down" The B-24 or the Lanc??

Thanks David

Hazardous Toys inc

Good Question! Erich, any info?

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

I dont think that the small ammount of defensive armament to be added to a Lancaster would lower the performance all that much. It already had a nose and tail turret and dorsal turret, all it needed was waist gunners and belly turret. Those 3 additions I think would have a minimal effect based on the payload wieght that it could carry. Those small additions would have been streamlined to reduce drag as well.

The Ball turret was about 1,200lbs + 200/250 for the gunner and his personal equiptment then 750 rds x 2 + oxygen + aircraft structure to support it. Similarly the waist gunners 250lbs ea. + personal eqpt (parachute, heated suite, etc) + mg +750rnds (typ)+ oxygen etc. call it 800/1,000lbs ea plus any armor for blind spots or fairings. Rough count 1,800/2,000lbs for a ball turret and 800/1,000 for each waist gun or about 3,600/4,000lbs total. that adds up to approximately 1 ton of bombs for an additional 200/400mi radius. That is signifigant to me.

SYS if you look at my post just above yours you'll see that I rated the B-17s bombay as the most restrictive and the huge bombay on the Lanc as its greatest feature.

wmaxt

the british weren't fans of waist gunners, the only plane the really had them was the wimpy, mainly because they're spray and prey weapons, baisically very inaccurate, british prefered turrets, so waist gunners would not be fitted, and secondly that's data for the american ball turrets, which are quite large and heavy, the british ventral systems were much smaller and lighter, as the gunner didn't sit in them, reducing weight further, furthermore, the british ventral turrets were fed from two 500 round boxes. Normally the rear turret's 4 guns were each fed by 2,500 rounds EACH! giving well over two minutes firing time, as this much was very rarely needed, the ammo count of two of the rear guns was reduced to 2,000 rounds each, the spare 1,000 rounds for the ventral guns- result? no extra weight for ammo! i'll look for figures on the weight of the actual turrets...........

 

[wmaxt]

Lanc,

That may be so, but a pacific/daylight model may be a different thing altogether - remember were talking about equiping similar to the US daylite bombers in this sub-discussion.

If you can come up with a weight for a british ventral turret - great! I'll bet the extra motors and servos to complete the required functions match the weight of having a man in it. The gunner etc weight still remains the same, as does the ammo weight, subtracting from another station (normaly done or not) is not acceptable it may have been deemed required in its new role. Ammo weight is not minor either, the P-47 left 48% of its ammo behind if it was carring more than 500lbs on the wings!

wmaxt

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Just was wanting to know is ...

"What plane did the Germans 'feel' was EZer to bring (shot) down" The B-24 or the Lanc??

Thanks David

Hazardous Toys inc

I think it would be a toss up. The B-24 had better defensive armament meening it would be harder for the Luftwaffe fighters to get to the formations to shoot them down but the B-24 was also prone to going up in flames easily.

 

[syscom3]

The B24's operated in the ady, making it far easier to shoot at it from any angle. The Lancs operated at night where they could sneek up on it.

The B24's had a weak wing, but the dual pilot system no doubt saved more than one plane from being shotdown. The Lancs single pilot setup meant that was a weak point.

Adler is right, its a toss up.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Wow, I think we're in agreement!

 

[cheddar cheese]

But the lanc can outmanoever them if it detects the Luftwaffe early enough...

 

[Erich]

here for a moment only today it appears........

When both the Lanc and the B-24 were flown at night they were easily brewed up by Schräg waffen of German Nachtjägers as niether had a belly turret to forewarn the crew.

As to Lancasters flying in day formation I am not sure if the ops were deviated from night time flying formation ? B-24's on the other hand flew in tight "pulks" or boxes but the GErman day fighter guys that I have interviewed felt they were easy to knock down from the rear same as the B-17's, once the tail gunners position was knocked out, it was then attacked toward the inboard wing and engine or both engines on one side of the heavy bomber. It must be said that the German pilots knew as they flew through the US bomber formations that they would receive a full fullsaide of fire from the waist gunners station, so yes this position on the bomber was certainly needed. Maybe not so with RAF night time characteristics but you can be well aware that the tail position was probably given too much responsibility in issuing warnings to pilot/co-pilot. Had there been the waist positions in place then some relief and of course a much better standing of looking out for the protection of the craft and crew as a whole when German nf's were flying about. Besides the belly turret position was a necessary installation one never fully resolved till wars end and thus the demise of too many RAF bombers both Lancs and Halibags

 

[syscom3]

But the lanc can outmanoever them if it detects the Luftwaffe early enough...

I dont think any four engined bomber is going to out maneuver a fighter.