The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

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

syscom3

Pacific Historian
14,797
10,826
Jun 4, 2005
Orange County, CA
Actually, Im going to calculate the number of Lanc sorties up to summer 1943 and compare it to the B24 sorties in the same time period. I will then apply the Lanc loss rate to those numbers and see what comes up.

Of course you never thought of doing it.
 
Well, it's official ladies. The old thread finally reached fifty pages, so to check out the earlier excitement of the B-24 vs. Lancaster battle royal, refer to the Archive section.

Here's to another fifty pages. I've a feeling it won't be long. ;)
 
Syscom I think it is funny here. You said you would not take Lancs simulation post into account because it was based off of statistics. What the hell have you been doing the whole damn time. That means absolutetly nothing you have said means anything.

Sorry syscom you have not proven that the B-24 was better than the Lanc. Contrary to me you have proven to me even more why the Lancaster is better.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Syscom I think it is funny here. You said you would not take Lancs simulation post into account because it was based off of statistics. What the hell have you been doing the whole damn time. That means absolutetly nothing you have said means anything.

Sorry syscom you have not proven that the B-24 was better than the Lanc. Contrary to me you have proven to me even more why the Lancaster is better.
Yep same with me. Good link pbfoot.
 
Actually, Im going to calculate the number of Lanc sorties up to summer 1943

and how, preytell, are you going to do this? i hope you're not planning on using the link someone posted with monthly figures, that's a very good site, however you would have to be an exceptionally tallented idiot to use those figures as they're for the entire bomber command, not just lancasters ;) and don't just say the lanc made up most of bomber command, because it wasn't for years that she did.............

no, what you really need to compile daytime loos rate information is and entire list of lancaster operations during the war, and, what's this sitting infront of me! would that be an entire list of al lancaster operations during the war? i think it is, and i didn't realise you had one too............

I will then apply the Lanc loss rate to those numbers and see what comes up

wait a minute syscom, isn't the loss rate a statistic? i mean i don't have a problem with statistics but i thought you were against them as you felt they didn't prove anything??

Of course you never thought of doing it

gimme a break, you want a friggin medal? or did you just feel that as this is obviously the first time you've ever come up with an idea you'd brag about it ;) well i wouldn't, because i did think of it, but then i realised i don't need it to prove any points, you however do, so maybe you're stupid for not thinking of it sooner?

you're not the first person i've argued with about the lanc Vs. B-24 or B-17, you're nothing special, try not to flatter yourself ;) because if you carry on the way you're going soon we're all just going to ignore you, i mean come on how old are you? i'm 15 and even i can see that statistics can prove or dissprove almost anything..........
 
the lancaster kicks ass said:
[
wait a minute syscom, isn't the loss rate a statistic? i mean i don't have a problem with statistics but i thought you were against them as you felt they didn't prove anything??

That is what you said Syscom. You said that Lancs simulation does not count because it is statistics.

So anything counts for you if it is for your argument but if it is good for someone else you do not allow it? :D
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
the lancaster kicks ass said:
[
wait a minute syscom, isn't the loss rate a statistic? i mean i don't have a problem with statistics but i thought you were against them as you felt they didn't prove anything??

That is what you said Syscom. You said that Lancs simulation does not count because it is statistics.

I said statistics need to be put in context to be effective in analysis. All he is doing is quoting numbers with no additional information about it. Is he only comparing the B24 and Lanc in the ETO? Do the figures reflect all theaters? Hey, I can prove the B24 is far better than the Lanc if I only quote PTO statistics.

I have a sneaking suspicion that some of those stats made the Lanc look better than what they really reflect as there were more Lancs (in the first 1/2 of 1943) doing missions than there were B24's.

Im going to tally up the number of B24 missions in that time period and compare it with the Lanc numbers. Now since the B24 loss rate at night would be no different than the Lancs, we can more effectively compare loss rate per sortie and tonnage per sortie.

The numbers will speak for themselves.

So anything counts for you if it is for your argument but if it is good for someone else you do not allow it? :D

I look at statistics in any form with a sceptical eye, unless the background is explained on what data was collected and how it was "sliced and diced"
for interpretation. If he can show me more information about it, I will give it credit or request more information.

You yourself shouldnt be so blindly accepting of such data without asking more questions.
 
the lancaster kicks ass said:
and we must listen to him because he has proved himself worthy of being an all powerful and wise aviation god ;)

You know some stuff, I know some stuff. Youre wrong on occasion and so am I.

Difference between you and I is I will admit when I am wrong or someone has proven their point.

I dont feel you have proven some of your points about the Lanc beyond a doubt. Sorry to make you uncomfortable when I bring up points about either bomber and you dont have data available.
 
syscom3 said:
All he is doing is quoting numbers with no additional information about it.

And that is all you have done. You put numbers out and make your own opinions off them, you dont prove anything. For instance saying that a B-24 was easier to build because more were built and showing the numbers is just quoting numbers. Until you can say this many were built because the B-24 was easier to build because it of this... you have not proven anything. You are just quoting numbers.

syscom3 said:
I have a sneaking suspicion that some of those stats made the Lanc look better than what they really reflect as there were more Lancs (in the first 1/2 of 1943) doing missions than there were B24's.

And in defense of you, this does not prove that a Lancaster is better than a B-24. However nothing you have posted proves that it a B-24 is better.

syscom3 said:
The numbers will speak for themselves.

No, the way you present the numbers will speak for you and nothing else.

syscome said:
You yourself shouldnt be so blindly accepting of such data without asking more questions.

You yourself should not question how I look at things, or you might just get yourself into a fight that you can not win. :evil: :mad:
 
syscom3 said:
Difference between you and I is I will admit when I am wrong or someone has proven their point.

I dont feel you have proven some of your points about the Lanc beyond a doubt. Sorry to make you uncomfortable when I bring up points about either bomber and you dont have data available.

No you do not, because we have explained to you that some of the points you have made, hold no bearing and yet you keep repeating them over and over. It really is fucking annoying. :mad:
 
If he has more data about the statistics then post them. If it clarifies how the stats were derived then we can discuss it.

And I proved plenty about the production rates. Among them:
1) The B24 was built in far more quantities per factory than the Lanc.
2) Untill Flyboy finally found some data showing how many man hours were needed to build the B24, noone really knew who was better. We still dont have the data for the Lanc other than we figure it was similar to another Brit bomber.
3) I had some preliminary data for the B24. None of you had anything for the Lanc. Some data for the B24 beats out NO data for the Lanc.
4) We all learned a bunch about bomber production.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back