Pick Your Own Air Force

evangilder · Mar 15, 2005

Other way around, GT. The B-24s were gradually replaced with B-17s later in the war. The B-24 had a severe weakness with the Davis wing. One good shot between the engines with a flak burst, and that wing folded up. The B-24 could carry a larger payload, faster and farther, but could not absorb the amount of damage the B-17 could.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Mar 15, 2005

Well I would go like this:

1. T-6 Texan (trainer)
2. DC-3 (transport)
3. Fw-190D-9 (Day fighter)
4. Me-109G-6 (day fighter)
5. B-29 (bomber)
6. He-219 (night fighter)
7. P-38 Lightning (day fighter)
8. Lancaster (bomber)
9. Tempest (ground attack/fighter)

GT · Mar 16, 2005

Update.

evangilder · Mar 16, 2005

Good point, GT. I was thinking only from the USAAF perspective, my bad.

the lancaster kicks ass · Mar 16, 2005

nice list adler...........

DAVIDICUS · Mar 16, 2005

Yeah, I notice he's got a Lancaster in there.

Compared to the B-29, a dog ... with bad teeth.

the lancaster kicks ass · Mar 16, 2005

oh dear god you're a B-17 fan aren't you??

DAVIDICUS · Mar 16, 2005

Ah, the Flying Fortress, how'd you guess?

I would have to say though that the B-29 was clearly head and shoulders above any other heavy bomber of the war. Any artificial airforce lacking the B-29 would be an air force lacking a massively powerful fast and long range punch.

mosquitoman · Mar 16, 2005

DAVIDICUS, not all Brits have bad teeth and why go for a B-17? it wasn't even a heavy bomber with that useless bombload

the lancaster kicks ass · Mar 16, 2005

yeah i can't believe you're slagging off the lanc then say the B-17 was good

the lanc was far superior to the B-17, and please remember the lanc was delivered in 1941 with no problems to be ironed out in service, the B-29 was delivered 3 years later with many many problems, and although i know the B-29 weas capable of carrying a grand slam, it never droped one in anger, unline the lanc, it's the lanc that will go down in history as the aircraft that used the heaviest conventional weapon of all time............

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Mar 16, 2005

I prefer the B-17 over the Lanc only because my favorite bomber was the Memphis Belle which was a B-17. However I will agree that the Lanc was a better bomber then the B-17. It could carry more bombs and was just as durable. The B-17 however could take more damage then the B-24.

the lancaster kicks ass · Mar 16, 2005

well whilst the lanc was far more durable than people give her credit for, she wasn't as durable as the B-17, but damage tollerance, ceiling and defensive armourment were the only ways the B-17 is better than the lanc

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Mar 16, 2005

I personally just like the B-17 better. It is just my own oppinion but the Lanc was a better bomber, I will give you that.

polebrook351st · Mar 16, 2005

they were all good. advantages and disadvantages. but for me its the 17 for the durability and firepower. if you had a choice between a b24 or b17 you'd be nuts to climb in a 24, one engine out and you're going down almost for certain. my father flew in 17's and was grateful he did.

wmaxt · Mar 17, 2005

The Lanc was a good plane however It would not have survived Daylight rades like the B-17.

The Lancaster was not directly comparable to the B-29 in any respect. So It carried the Grand Slam, as compared with the Atom bomb @ 22,000 TONS of explosives, it was at a reduced range with little firepower no pressurization (required for 30,000ft and above or missions of more than 10 hrs).

An Average B-29 mission was 16,000lbs for 6,000mi. What does that add up to twice the load, twice the distance with 4 times the defensive (8 times the punch) firepower 50%greater speed and if desired twice the altitude plus a crew more fresh and ready to go when needed? The B-29 even carried Test Aircraft into the air.

But that's not an embarasment for the Lancaster considering the B-29 was designed with a far greater knowledge base and 3 years development @ 3 Billion dollars invested - I've heard it was the largest most intense and expensive program in WWII. All of which was unavailable in '42 for the Lancaster.

the lancaster kicks ass · Mar 17, 2005

no that's what i'm saying, the two aircraft are different, would you compare a Ta-152 with a hawker hurricane?? no, because they're from two completely different time periods...........

GT · Mar 17, 2005

Update.

the lancaster kicks ass · Mar 17, 2005

i would call an engine prone to catching on fire more than a teething problem.........

wmaxt · Mar 17, 2005

the lancaster kicks ass said:
no that's what i'm saying, the two aircraft are different, would you compare a Ta-152 with a hawker hurricane?? no, because they're from two completely different time periods...........

That goes for the B-17/Lancaster as well. It's amazing the B-17 still contended as well as it did! It was every bit as good as the Lancaster in it's own job as it did over Europe.

cheddar cheese · Mar 17, 2005

the lancaster kicks ass said:
i would call an engine prone to catching on fire more than a teething problem.........

I wouldnt. I reckon coupled engines would probably have become reliable enough if they were devloped.

Pick Your Own Air Force

"Shooter"

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Senior Airman

"Shooter"

Major General

Staff Sergeant

Major General

Staff Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Recruit

Staff Sergeant

Major General

Senior Airman

Major General

Staff Sergeant

Major General

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads