The Best Bomber of WWII: #4 - Page 2 - Aircraft of World War II

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-12-2006, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

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 ****ing annoying.

the lancaster kicks ass · 01-12-2006, 01:42 PM

well if you want to ask me questions about my figures ask them! don't wait for me to tell you............

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-12-2006, 01:47 PM

You answers do not matter Lanc, his statistics say so...

Gnomey · 01-12-2006, 01:59 PM

Very true Alder they do and Lancs figures back up what syscoms statistics say...

syscom3 · 01-12-2006, 02:23 PM

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.

syscom3 · 01-12-2006, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

You answers do not matter Lanc, his statistics say so...

Are you afraid of what the numbers say in a different analysis?

If it shows the Lanc was still better, then thats the way it is. If it shows that the differences were so small to be insignificant, then thats the way it is. If it shows the B24 as better, then thats the way it is.

the lancaster kicks ass · 01-12-2006, 05:00 PM

well, i don't know how it can be made any more simple sys, the loss rates for both planes i've calculated from all sorties, day and night, they did in the war, using all the losses they sustained during the war............

the tonnages were the total tonnages dropped offensively during the war............

Quote:

Some data for the B24 beats out NO data for the Lanc

that's not true, there being no data implies that there were none made, as if you make something like that then data can be collected, there IS data for the lanc, i just don't have the exact data you're after...........

syscom3 · 01-13-2006, 12:54 AM

Heres the first set of info I have for the 8th AF B24's operating in the ETO, all of 1942 and through June 30 1943.

715 sorties with 24 loss's.

Only 2 BG's were used in this time period, with one of them for only a few months of this time period (93rd and 44th BG). I have to look at the 15th AF (MTO) records because they probably had most of the B24 groups in that time period.

So Lanc, how many Lanc sorties and loss's occured in this time period.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-13-2006, 08:41 AM

Lets see, lets break down what you just said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

And I proved plenty about the production rates. Among them:
1) The B24 was built in far more quantities per factory than the Lanc.

You did not prove anything because everyone already knew that. So what exactly did you prove. That did not prove that the B-24 was easier to make. It proved that the US had a greater production capacity, which guess what, was never contested, that is a fact and everyone knows that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

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.

Which proves what? Nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

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.

However what did this data prove? Nothing. You seem to think it proves the Lanc was harder to build which makes the B-24 so much better. It does not. Do I have to start repeating this like you do over and over like you love doing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

4) We all learned a bunch about bomber production.

That I did, but I question whether you did because facts about Aircraft building that me and FBJ have posted you seem not to believe. You still seem to think that building a Bomber or any aircraft for a matter of fact is like building a Ford.

FLYBOYJ · 01-13-2006, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Lets see, lets break down what you just said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

And I proved plenty about the production rates. Among them:
1) The B24 was built in far more quantities per factory than the Lanc.

You did not prove anything because everyone already knew that. So what exactly did you prove. That did not prove that the B-24 was easier to make. It proved that the US had a greater production capacity, which guess what, was never contested, that is a fact and everyone knows that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

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.

Which proves what? Nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

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.

However what did this data prove? Nothing. You seem to think it proves the Lanc was harder to build which makes the B-24 so much better. It does not. Do I have to start repeating this like you do over and over like you love doing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

4) We all learned a bunch about bomber production.

That I did, but I question whether you did because facts about Aircraft building that me and FBJ have posted you seem not to believe. You still seem to think that building a Bomber or any aircraft for a matter of fact is like building a Ford.

And the fact that so many were scrapped so quickly PROVES my earlier statement. The B-24 served well but it was a DUMPTRUCK! Once the war was over, it got turned into Fords!!!! 6000 gone in one year!!! The Lancaster remained around for many years, not because of desperation, because it was an adaptable airframe.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-13-2006, 09:01 AM

Dont waste your breath FBJ!

FLYBOYJ · 01-13-2006, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Dont waste your breath FBJ!

Hey, I think its pretty entertaining!

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-13-2006, 02:30 PM

It gives me a headache.

Nonskimmer · 01-13-2006, 03:33 PM

I'm with Joe, it's a bit entertaining. To be honest though, it's starting to become rather boring.

Oh, and the Lancaster rocked. No stats, just 'cuz I said so. NYAAA-NYYAAAAA!!!

syscom3 · 01-13-2006, 03:36 PM

If it gives you a headache, then dont read the thread anymore.

I will continue to post things about this as its opened all sorts of variables on what made both planes so great.

01-12-2006, 01:42 PM	#17
the lancaster kicks ass Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 19,945	well if you want to ask me questions about my figures ask them! don't wait for me to tell you............ __________________ "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."

01-12-2006, 01:47 PM	#18
DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crewchief Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany Posts: 33,011	You answers do not matter Lanc, his statistics say so... __________________ fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"[/I]

01-12-2006, 01:59 PM	#19
Gnomey "World Traveller" Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Royal Deeside/St Andrews, Scotland, UK Posts: 15,080	Very true Alder they do and Lancs figures back up what syscoms statistics say... __________________ "Success is not Final, Failure is not Fatal, it is the Courage to Continue that Counts" Sir Winston Churchill "To him the People of the World Largely owe the Freedom and Liberties they Enjoy Today" Enscription on Hugh Dowding's (AOC Fighter Command 1936-40) statue in London WW2 Talk: A WW2 Discussion Forum My Photo Collections on Flickr

01-12-2006, 02:23 PM	#20
syscom3 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 10,186	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. __________________ "Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?"

01-13-2006, 12:54 AM	#23
syscom3 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 10,186	Heres the first set of info I have for the 8th AF B24's operating in the ETO, all of 1942 and through June 30 1943. 715 sorties with 24 loss's. Only 2 BG's were used in this time period, with one of them for only a few months of this time period (93rd and 44th BG). I have to look at the 15th AF (MTO) records because they probably had most of the B24 groups in that time period. So Lanc, how many Lanc sorties and loss's occured in this time period. __________________ "Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?"

01-13-2006, 09:01 AM	#26
DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crewchief Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany Posts: 33,011	Dont waste your breath FBJ! __________________ fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"[/I]

01-13-2006, 02:30 PM	#28
DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crewchief Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany Posts: 33,011	It gives me a headache. __________________ fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"[/I]

01-13-2006, 03:33 PM	#29
Nonskimmer Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 8,871	I'm with Joe, it's a bit entertaining. To be honest though, it's starting to become rather boring. Oh, and the Lancaster rocked. No stats, just 'cuz I said so. NYAAA-NYYAAAAA!!!

01-13-2006, 03:36 PM	#30
syscom3 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 10,186	If it gives you a headache, then dont read the thread anymore. I will continue to post things about this as its opened all sorts of variables on what made both planes so great. __________________ "Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?"

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode