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


NO! They had these funny little planes with bent crosses on their tails flying over them dropping bombs, I think that might slow things down a bit!

The Germans made no real attempt to seriously mass produce a plane like the Lancaster or the B-24, and dont count that flying disaster the -177 Grief!!!
 
syscom3 said:
Its only a matter of sub assembly's being bolted together.

Four one engined airplanes = a single four engined bomber
Click to expand...
BOLT TOGETHER?!?
Have you ever witnesses two large aircraft sub assemblies go together?!? In some of the application you don't use rivets, you use a steel pin called a hi loc which needs to be precision drilled and swedged into place. You also need an assembly jig to hold everything together or else you build a crooked plane, you just don't "bolt together" a large aircraft!

Remember you hand build a bomber it takes over 200,000 manhours per plane, that's how long the first B-24s took to build if you put in you're example?!?
 
The rate per assembly went down to 15,000 or so for the whole thing. Call it bolting or riviting, it doesnt matter. If the aircraft is designed correctly, its just line up the jigs and start the assembly process.

Excuse me if I didnt specify that the sub assemblies had to be on jigs, there had to be people on hand to do the thing, the factory had to have some type of power turned on, there had to be a cup of coffee or tea brewing somewhere, blah blah blah, blah blah

The US proved it could be done quickly and there was no reason for the brits not to be able to do it. In some ways, they should have been able to do it faster than the US as all their production facilities were located near each other as compared to the US.
 

Its called manpower and resources and they (the UK) didn't have it to the extent we did. Much of the aircraft manufacturing industry methodology was actually learned from them, we improved on it (willow run) by inviting automotive manufacturers into the situation and at the time the US was a world leader in that industry. They probably could of adopted some of the things we did built it would of meant shutting down a production line to incorporate those improvements, you don't do that if you're fighting for your life...
 
Even if they produced it in a more conventional manner, they still should have been able to boost production. Remember the US was never at full war emergency as the Brits were. They could move people and material around with far more ease.
 

Oh and dont forget to mention that it is not a Ford Car. Putting together an aicraft is precision work. I have been stating that over and over but it just does not sink in.

I think tomorrow I will take my Blackhawk apart and Bolt the Sub Assemblies back together because its easy!
 
syscom3 said:
Probably could have built that many.

But only putting out 7500 Lancs isnt much of an achievement at all. The Germans showed that production could be decentralized and yet output could go way up.
.
Click to expand...

I think you will find that Germany produced less aircraft than the UK in straight numbers and generally less complex aircraft.

4 engine aircraft UK around 16-17,000 Germany around 1000

We also out produced Germany in the first half of the war when we were nd definately on the defensive. The UK doesn't have to apologise for our ability to build under pressure.
 
syscom3 said:
Even if they produced it in a more conventional manner, they still should have been able to boost production. Remember the US was never at full war emergency as the Brits were. They could move people and material around with far more ease.
Click to expand...

Thety didn't have the people or resources!!!!
 
And they did do just that. They concentrated on what they needed for survival: Fighters! You have to remember that they were being attacked at the hight of the Blitz. Had the US been in there shoes they would have concentrated on fighters too just like England did.

Look at the time line man!
 
syscom3 said:
They had enough to concentrate on 3 or 4 planes and produce them by the thousands.
Click to expand...

And that's it! They didn't have the ability to bring in the raw materials necessary to construct modern factories (Like Willow Run) and to even attempt to do so could of spelled disaster to an already taxed demand. Why do you think they (the UK) purchased P-40s, Baltimores, Marylands, B-24s, etc., etc. They were fighting for their lives. At the same time this doesn't diminish the effort they put into their aircraft industry and the products they produced....


During the Blitz several of their major aircraft factories were bombed (Supermarine factory in Southampton for one) as a matter of fact, there was an all-out effort to destroy the British ability to manufacture aircraft on August 12, 1940. The Brits had less people, resources, and were being bombed - to attempt to say they should of matched US production numbers is ridiculous!
 
It is rather a matter of common sense. The British did the best they could at the time and built what was necessary to survive. What did they concentrate on at first? Fighters. Bingo you need fighters to destroy the enemy offensive.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
It is rather a matter of common sense. The British did the best they could at the time and built what was necessary to survive. What did they concentrate on at first? Fighters. Bingo you need fighters to destroy the enemy offensive.
Click to expand...

YEP!!!
 
Agreed, and then you need heavy bombers to take the offensive back to him.
 
and this was wartime, FB made some good points, do you really honestly think that we wouldn't be producing to our fullest capacity? we don't have the manpower of america, to claim we do is rediculous, i shall point out again that at the peak of production Avro had 29,000 men working on lancasters, that's for every factory and many sub-contractors, willow run alone employed 42,000, why? becuase america had the man power, we did not...........
 
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
6K
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