Shortround6
Major General
Following that thinking means that few, if any aircraft, introduced into service from late 1944 on could be considered as the "best in category" because they wouldn't have enough time to build up as big a service record.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yes, I think combat record definitely should come in to it. To that end, yes, I think the Lanc should score points over the B-29, she is the one that actually dropped them in combat. I can't really put it any more succinctly than that
And the B29 is the only plane to have dropped atomic weapons. Of which the Lancaster did not.
And Lanc ..... The B29 could carry two large naval mines on a 1600 mile mission. Could the Lancaster do that?
Following that thinking means that few, if any aircraft, introduced into service from late 1944 on could be considered as the "best in category" because they wouldn't have enough time to build up as big a service record.
The'A bomb' may be the B29's claim to fame in the PTO but, in the ETO its irrelevant as not even the maddest commander would consider nuclear weapons when they own troops were in the vicinity. would they????
To usea B 29 you need pretty much complete superiority, If the B 29 was available in 1943 would it have been used in Europe which plane would escort it, on another thread it was stated that the use of the B 29 had to be re considered due to cost loss rates acceptable on B17s wernt acceptable on B 29s it was simply too expensive to lose.
To usea B 29 you need pretty much complete superiority, If the B 29 was available in 1943 would it have been used in Europe which plane would escort it, on another thread it was stated that the use of the B 29 had to be re considered due to cost loss rates acceptable on B17s wernt acceptable on B 29s it was simply too expensive to lose.
Not true - the B-32 was the aircraft to be used inEurope to replace both the B-17 and B-24
I'm not convinced that we really needed a replacement for the Lancaster Flying Fortress.
I realise that the PTO demanded range but, in the ETO the old faithfull's delivered some pulverising attacks on the German war machine.
I said that
I'd like to issue an apology if I ever did say that, it must have been a very long time ago. I was young, stupid and didn't know what I was saying.
Thanks, but was thinking solely between the B-29 and the Lancaster, since they seem to be the two that we're mostly, well.....arguing about....
Not to blow a gasket or anything, but how is it any different in the ETO as in the PTO? When comparing any aircraft, aircraft A is aircraft A, and aircraft B is aircraft B.
The B-29 was a superior aircraft to the Lancaster. Period. It was superior in design, performance, defensive armament...
The Lancaster was the better aircraft in the ETO because the B-29 did not serve in the ETO, but that does not make it a superior aircraft.
Again I am not blowing a gasket or anything like that, nor am I trying to take anything away from the Lancaster. It was a marvelous aircraft and did its job with exceptional ability. I would take a Lancaster over a B-17 or B-24 any day. People always want to use service record and what not, but the B-29 was still the next generation and was a superior aircraft in all respects to any of the earlier generation of heavy bombers to include the B-17, B-24 and Lancaster.