The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

syscom3 · 01-11-2006, 03:01 PM

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.

Nonskimmer · 01-11-2006, 03:28 PM

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.

pbfoot · 01-11-2006, 08:45 PM

I located this US guvernment website on on ww2 photo archives searched willow run and they had a 100 BW photos of the production line very impressive
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsowhome.html

FLYBOYJ · 01-11-2006, 09:16 PM

Very Cool!

syscom3 · 01-11-2006, 09:30 PM

Great link!

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-12-2006, 12:20 AM

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.

Gnomey · 01-12-2006, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

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.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-12-2006, 08:12 AM

Thats because its common sense, some people have it.

the lancaster kicks ass · 01-12-2006, 09:51 AM

Quote:

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............

Quote:

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??

Quote:

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..........

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-12-2006, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

[
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?

the lancaster kicks ass · 01-12-2006, 09:56 AM

and we must listen to him because he has proved himself worthy of being an all powerful and wise aviation god

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-12-2006, 10:02 AM

syscom3 · 01-12-2006, 11:17 AM

[quote="DerAdlerIstGelandet"]

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

[
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??

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

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.

syscom3 · 01-12-2006, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

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.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-12-2006, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

The numbers will speak for themselves.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscome

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.