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

In 1943, the bombing threat was over. The brits and the US had lots and lots fo fighters to take care of the Luftwaffe.

So what three or four planes should the RAF concentrated on?
 
And they concentrated on what was necessary. Why are you the only one who does not understand this.

They concentrated on Spitfires, Mossies, and Lancasters. They did not have the production capacity to build as many as the US did. Again why are you the only one that does not understand this?
 
Can I remind you again of the thousands of V1 and V2 rockets that were landing on us. You keep forgetting those.
Plus of course.
Having built the factories the disruption in moving them or changing production would have been huge.
I suggest you anwser your own question which would you drop. Typhoon? and leave us without any ground attack
Halifax bit like saying the USA should have stopped building the B17 as the B24 could be produced more easily.
Mossie And leave us without so much
Sunderland and leave us without any long range A/S recce
Spitfire and leave us without a fighter.

In 1940 when we were in our darkest hour we did drop production of all but a few key types just as the germans did in their darkest hour. This is one reason why the MB3 and MB5 didn't enter service, the Mossie was delayed, the development of the jet engine was slowed down and with it the delay to the Meteor and Vampire.
 
the lancaster kicks ass said:
my figure for Avro includes women, i think it did for willow run too..........
Click to expand...
here are some of the women at willow run and they had a different group called blacks which was unusual as well and it was forced on the war plants by FDR
 

Attachments

  • 8e11147r_398.jpg
    68.2 KB · Views: 239
  • 8e11160r_108.jpg
    62.7 KB · Views: 237
but we did have the sence to stop production lines for a bit to make changes, unlike the americans who sent their newly produced obsolete B-24s off to mod. centres

and sys do you really think we could've produced more than we were? do you think we were sitting back drinking tea the whole time? no, it would've been very hard for us to make more aircraft, given we were working at full capacity!
 
yes bombers are designed to drop bombs, few bombers in history have done this as well as the avro lancaster, very few planes have their load carrying ability classed and legendary, the lancaster is one of them.........
 
Good info all of you guys, BUT YOUR WRONG!!!!! THERE IS NO REASON WHY ENGLAND COULD NOT KEEP UP WITH THE USA IN BUILDING BOMBERS!!!!!! HELL WHO CARES THAT YOU GUYS WERE BEING BOMBED, WHO CARES THAT THE US WASN'T!!!!!! NONE OF THIS SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT!!!!


Okay I am done now!!
 
Can I remind you again of the thousands of V1 and V2 rockets that were landing on us. You keep forgetting those.
Click to expand...

V1's and V2's couldnt hit anything they were aimed at.

Having built the factories the disruption in moving them or changing production would have been huge.
Click to expand...

No need to move anything. The factories are there and tooling can be produced in a fair enough time. All it means is some factories will build sub assemblies, some assemble the final product. Plus theyre all close to each other, so its not like in the US where the distance between the plants can be 2000 miles.

I suggest you anwser your own question which would you drop. ......
Click to expand...

I would drop the Beaufighter and put the Spit into a very low rate of production. All other multiengine bombers would be dropped in favor of nothing but Lancs. Maritime patrol really wasnt as important after 1943 as the number of escort carriers took up that mission just fine. And all carrier based aircraft would be stopped as the USN had better aircraft available by the thousands.
 

Come on, that statement was pretty lame!!!! If you fired enough of them you're going to hit something, and that they did...




15 June 1944, with 244 fired at London and 50 fired at Southampton. 144 crossed the English coast; 73 managed to reach London; some were shot down; most of the rest landed south of the Thames; and a few hit Southampton. One went wildly astray and ended up in Norfolk. You try going to work under those conditions

Having built the factories the disruption in moving them or changing production would have been huge.
Click to expand...


Again you're ignorance of aircraft manufacturing is apparent. Do you think you could just sh*t out an assembly jig?!? The most time consuming part of aircraft production is the developing of the tooling. I briefly worked as a tooling inspector and I could tell you sometimes it took 2 years to build, develop and correct a major assembly tool, mind you during WW2 the task would have been heavily expedited, but still time consuming

And what do you do to those commanders in the field who want or need an aircraft like a Beaufighter?!? What do you replace it with?!? The military dictates what aircraft are needed, industry attempts to support that need -

As far as Naval aircraft - that last time I looked at information about the FAA, they had numerous American Aircraft - Hmmmm, didn't a Brit teach us how to land a Corsair on a carrier?!?!?
 
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