Versatile Heavy Bombers

the lancaster kicks ass · 01-02-2006, 12:17 PM

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

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-02-2006, 12:24 PM

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.

the lancaster kicks ass · 01-02-2006, 12:27 PM

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.........

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-02-2006, 12:30 PM

And how is that. The only really big modification I can think of would be the Tall Boy, big deal.

the lancaster kicks ass · 01-02-2006, 12:39 PM

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?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-02-2006, 01:08 PM

Lanc the B-24 carried lifeboats also and would drop them into the water just like a Lancaster to rescue people.

And lets see the Lancaster B MK.1 was a conversion (aka modification) of the Lancaster MK.1 to carry the Grand Slam bomb. The Bomb Bay doors also had to be removed to do so as well as aerodynamic fairings fitted. So the regular Lancaster could not carry a Grand Slam.

Also my understanding was that the Lancaster required modification to the bomb bay doors as well as the bomb bay in order to carry the Tall Boy bombs.

Also lets see this is just what I found upond doing a quick google search:

The weight of the Tallboy and the high altitude required of the bombing aircraft meant that the Lancaster bombers used had to be specially adapted. Armour plating and even defensive armament were removed to reduce weight and the bomb-bay doors had to be adapted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallboy_bomb

So you were saying Lanc that the the Lancaster did not have to be modified to carry a Tallboy bomb? Think that one over again. Basically what I am saying here Lanc is what is good for the Lanc is good for other other aircraft also. Just because other aircraft had to be modified does not mean the Lancaster had to be modified either. The same goes for the Lancaster vs. B-24.

Dont discredit things about the B-24 and automatically assume the Lancaster was different. They were a lot more equal in versatility than you would like to admit.

syscom3 · 01-02-2006, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

Why lower?

The Jetstream for one. The B29's flying at 30,000 feet couldnt hit anything with winds of 200 mph blowing them and the bombs around

Second is the fighter threat was nil.

Third is the Japanese flak was poor.

Glider · 01-02-2006, 02:17 PM

I understand that but you said that the B29 would have to operate at less than 20,000 ft over Japan, whilst the Jetstream as I understand it is at 30,000 ft.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-02-2006, 03:29 PM

Jet Streams are found between 7 to 8 miles above the surface. Therfore yes theoretically the B-29's did not need to be below 20,000 ft. I can not tell you at what alltitude they were bombing at though.

syscom3 · 01-02-2006, 03:32 PM

Im going to enquire on the B29 website what altitudes they bombed at in the last few months of the war.

I know it was below 30,000 ft, but nothing like getting verifying info from the men who flew the missions

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-02-2006, 03:38 PM

Agreed. I am sure it was not below 20,000ft however. That would have just been dumb, the Japanese airforce was not dead yet. Close but not dead.

Gnomey · 01-02-2006, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Agreed. I am sure it was not below 20,000ft however. That would have just been dumb, the Japanese airforce was not dead yet. Close but not dead.

Agreed.

I'm am with you Lanc on this one, I think that the Lancaster is more versitile than the B-24. Both could do a great many roles well and were used in these roles, both are good aircraft but the Lanc has it for me.

wmaxt · 01-02-2006, 06:04 PM

The B-29 bombed from as low as 7,000ft when firebombing.

I think Adler is right in that the B-24 could do any role the Lanc could do and that through modifications the B-24 could also do most if not all the test bed functions of the Lanc (in fact there is a cargo version of the B-24 still doing fire bombing in the northwest, I've seen it).

I do feel though that tha Lanc, maybe just through the British willingness to try oddball things, slightly more versatile than the B-24 in actual use.

wmaxt

Glider · 01-02-2006, 07:22 PM

FOr Oddball I prefer imaginative solutions to problems. Less chance of the white men in coats coming for us

the lancaster kicks ass · 01-03-2006, 03:15 AM

to carry a tallboy no modifications were needed, the only one nessisary was the fitting of slightly bulged bomb bay doors, the lancs chosen to carry the tallboy already had these due to the 8,000lb blockbuster, and to carry a grand slam the only modification needed was the romoval of the bomb bay doors (the british liked smooth things so they faired in the bomb bay too), the turrets and men were only romoved in the actual operational lancs to increase range, the could lift it with the turrets and men in place............