the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
right, let's start of with the lanc Vs. B-24, right sys, what've you got? what makes you so dillusional you think the B-24 was more versatile than the lanc?
Versatile Heavy Bombers
- Thread starter the lancaster kicks ass
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Magister
Airman 1st Class
I have a better idea. Let's start out with the B-29 vs. the Lancaster. The best Brit vs. the best Yank.
Nonskimmer
Captain
Not a very realistic comparison, is it? Let's keep it in the same class. We know full well that the British had nothing that rated at the B-29's level at the time.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
I wouldnt say the Lanc was less versatile than the B24, and I hope I wasnt misunderstood as saying such that.
I said that both planes were versatile and it would be an even tie for the two in that catagory. And that would be for WW2 versions only, as post war they were both obsolete.
I said that both planes were versatile and it would be an even tie for the two in that catagory. And that would be for WW2 versions only, as post war they were both obsolete.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
How about comparing a tiger force Lanc (with modifications) compared to a B32.
Camarogenius
Airman
- 36
- Dec 2, 2005
As A Proud Ameican, I Still have to give it to the Lanc. Normal Bomb loads, the dam buster, the grand slam that got the Turpitz, the Lanc was pretty flexible.
Nonskimmer
Captain
As bombers certainly, but both found uses in other areas. Maritime surveillance and search and rescue for example. The Lanc was even used for Arctic surveillance for a time. They were both readily adaptable designs, and while not the newest aircraft in existence by the end of the war, their lives weren't completely over yet either.syscom3 said:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
syscom3 said:
That's unfair - the B-32 was at least a technology decade ahead of the Lanc, it would be like comparing it to the B-29
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Aside from the more powerfull engines, they were similar. Although the B32 was designed for an operating altitude of 20,000 ft, if used against Japan, they would both be operating from far lower.
Glider
Captain
Why lower?
Glider
Captain
Timescales seem to be slipping with planes getting later. In a couple of days I will be putting the Canberra in for Tiger Force, design started in in 1945 
- Thread starter
- #12
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
the whole idea of us debating about the B-24 Vs. lancaster was to settle a point sys is undecided about in the best bomber thread, i think that lanc's more versatile than the B-24, which can be proved with her huge bomb bay, the wide range of missions she undertook, the wide range of payloads carried, the fact she was very succesfully fitted with a completely different type of engine, the electronic warfare instruments carried, not to mention all the work she did as an engine test bed not only for piston engines but also for up to two jet engines at the same time! oh yeah and she was converted into a civilian airliner and Britain's best transport of the second world war...........
Alright lets make up a list of what they could do (I am sure that this list is incomplete for both aircraft and that more will be thrown in):
Lancaster
Heavy Bomber
Anti Shipping
Maritime Patrole
ASW
Search And Rescue
Electronic Warfare
Transport
Air Refuel Tanker
Photo Recon
B-24 Liberator
Heavy Bomber
Transport
B-29 Trainer (RB-24L)
Flying Bomb Drone
Photo Recon
Maritime Patrol
Like I said though, I am sure that lists for both of these aircraft are incomplete. They both were very versatile.
Syscom I have read posts by you saying that the B-24 was versatile but you have also used that as an arguement that it was better than a Lanc. I dont think there was any role that the B-24 could do that the Lancaster could not do, and vise versa except for the Lanc carrying Tallboy bombs.
Lancaster
Heavy Bomber
Anti Shipping
Maritime Patrole
ASW
Search And Rescue
Electronic Warfare
Transport
Air Refuel Tanker
Photo Recon
B-24 Liberator
Heavy Bomber
Transport
B-29 Trainer (RB-24L)
Flying Bomb Drone
Photo Recon
Maritime Patrol
Like I said though, I am sure that lists for both of these aircraft are incomplete. They both were very versatile.
Syscom I have read posts by you saying that the B-24 was versatile but you have also used that as an arguement that it was better than a Lanc. I dont think there was any role that the B-24 could do that the Lancaster could not do, and vise versa except for the Lanc carrying Tallboy bombs.
- Thread starter
- #14
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i think there are many the lanc could do that the B-24 couldn't! and i've done a bit of research on the B-24 varients and i haven't really been blown away 
i mean how many different combinations of bombs could the B-24 take internally? could she carry large parachute mines? could she carry an upkeep? not a chance, could she carry a tallboy or grandslam, that's even less likely, what about all the electronic aids the lanc carried, how often was the B-24 used as an engine test bed? the lanc was used to test many piston engines mounted in the nose and even how two outboard engines taken out and replaced with jet engines!not to mention jet engines mounted in the tail and bomb bay, the B-24's bomb bay was barely big enough for bombs let alone engines
i mean how many different combinations of bombs could the B-24 take internally? could she carry large parachute mines? could she carry an upkeep? not a chance, could she carry a tallboy or grandslam, that's even less likely, what about all the electronic aids the lanc carried, how often was the B-24 used as an engine test bed? the lanc was used to test many piston engines mounted in the nose and even how two outboard engines taken out and replaced with jet engines!not to mention jet engines mounted in the tail and bomb bay, the B-24's bomb bay was barely big enough for bombs let alone engines
the lancaster kicks ass said:i think there are many the lanc could do that the B-24 couldn't! and i've done a bit of research on the B-24 varients and i haven't really been blown away
Lanc we have been over this before, those are not roles. I really doubt there was any ROLE that the Lancaster could do that the B-24 could not do.
Lanc you add a turret to an aircraft and you call it a role and call it versatile.
- Thread starter
- #16
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
so to you versatile just means the number of roles it could perform? this's where we differ because to me the ammount you can change an aircraft also counts as versatility............
The B-24 could have been changed just as much.
Lanc I am with you on the fact that the Lancaster was better than the B-24 however versatility is a very futile argument because they were both very very very versatile.
Lanc I am with you on the fact that the Lancaster was better than the B-24 however versatility is a very futile argument because they were both very very very versatile.
- Thread starter
- #18
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i see where you're coming from but i hope you can see where i'm coming from, the number of modifications that could be made to an aircraft is surely a good marker of versatility? and there're more modifications made to the lanc that the B-24 couldn't support than vice versa.........
And how is that. The only really big modification I can think of would be the Tall Boy, big deal.
- Thread starter
- #20
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
actually the lanc could carry a tallboy without modification, the B-24 couldn't even carry one, let alone the grandslams, could the B-24 even carry a cookie? i doubt her bomb bay would let her, which discounts anything larger, what about lifeboats, the lanc could carry them whilst the B-24 couldn't, what about the engine test beds, could the B-24 do that?
