Versatile Heavy Bombers

[Glider]

I think we have to discriminate to allow certain changes. There is a world of difference in trying to fit a bomb such as the Tallboy or even a 4,000 lb bomb into a bomb bay that isn't big enough and would involve structural changes to get it to fit. As opposed to bulged doors and the removal of some armour.
Also of course, the Lancaster changes had been designed, built and used in anger. Any other bomber would have had to start from scratch.

[delcyros]

I must agree with you. The Tallboy and the Lanc indeed belong together.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree with you 100%. My whole argument is that Lanc is so biased toward the Lancaster that everything on it was perfect, which was far from the truth.

[Glider]

Lanc, Biased? never noticed myself, honest!!!

[R988]

Interestingly Churchill used a B-24 as his personal transport aircraft, his own preferance according to some sources,



B-24 served on every front of the war, Lancaster was Europe only
B-24 production was 18,188 produced to the Lancasters 7,366.
The B-24 did a wider variety of roles during the war than the Lancaster, primarily because there was more of them and because it could do them very well. It was the best maritime patrol aircraft the allies had thanks to its range it could reach deep into the Atlantic to close the gap against the Uboats. It had range second only to the B-29 and by the end of the war was cleared for almost twice it's original take off weight, though it was very difficult to fly in that configuration. The B-24 was the classic all rounder, good in a huge variety of roles but outstanding in none.

The Lancaster was the most versitile bomber, in that it did those other tasks like patrol and transport but not really superior to or even as well as the B-24. But it did a lot more tricky and fancy bombing raids with 'exotic' weaponry like the Dambusters, Tirpitz raid, and various other extremely demanding precision bombing missions that few, if any, other aircraft could have performed as successfully.

If you talking about versitility in all tasks, the B-24 was the best all rounder hands down, but if your talking specificially about versitility in bombing missions then the Lanc is the clear winner.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yes but then Churchill and the King used an Avro York as their transport of choice, the York of course using a large number of lancaster components.............

and adler I realise that if a lanc intended to carry the tallboy and already had the "straight" bomb bay doors as i call them (not bulged) then they would have to be fitted, i only said the lanc wouldn't need out and out modification because most lancasters already had the bulged bomb bay doors fitted by this point, i can't say for sure but they may already have been standard by this point..........

and the lancaster was used very successfully in the maritime patrol role post war.............

[CurzonDax]

Still I think thats what makes some of these bombers so versatile what the fact that they were so modifiable and it was easy to do too, much easier than it would be to do the same to a B-1 or 52. Not just the Lanc was modifiable but look at all the mutations of the B-17. I think the coolest one was the airsea rescue version. It even appeared in a James Bond movie, I think it was You Only LIve Twice.

:{)

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by R988

Interestingly Churchill used a B-24 as his personal transport aircraft, his own preferance according to some sources,



B-24 served on every front of the war, Lancaster was Europe only
B-24 production was 18,188 produced to the Lancasters 7,366.
The B-24 did a wider variety of roles during the war than the Lancaster, primarily because there was more of them and because it could do them very well. It was the best maritime patrol aircraft the allies had thanks to its range it could reach deep into the Atlantic to close the gap against the Uboats. It had range second only to the B-29 and by the end of the war was cleared for almost twice it's original take off weight, though it was very difficult to fly in that configuration. The B-24 was the classic all rounder, good in a huge variety of roles but outstanding in none.

The Lancaster was the most versitile bomber, in that it did those other tasks like patrol and transport but not really superior to or even as well as the B-24. But it did a lot more tricky and fancy bombing raids with 'exotic' weaponry like the Dambusters, Tirpitz raid, and various other extremely demanding precision bombing missions that few, if any, other aircraft could have performed as successfully.

If you talking about versitility in all tasks, the B-24 was the best all rounder hands down, but if your talking specificially about versitility in bombing missions then the Lanc is the clear winner.

I agree 100%%%%

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

and adler I realise that if a lanc intended to carry the tallboy and already had the "straight" bomb bay doors as i call them (not bulged) then they would have to be fitted, i only said the lanc wouldn't need out and out modification because most lancasters already had the bulged bomb bay doors fitted by this point, i can't say for sure but they may already have been standard by this point..........

Roger that they allready had it, just that we understand that that was a modification.

However my personal take on the matter is, both bombers were extremely versatile and I think they were both equal in that aspects.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i think the whole arguments dying out now anyway, and the opinion poll's put the lanc ahead of the B-24..........

[syscom3]

Youre going to put your faith in the opinion polls?

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i'm putting my faith in my own knowledge, the opinion polls are backing me up..............

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Youre going to put your faith in the opinion polls?

Well considering there are some very knowledgable people here that voted in those polls, Id buy them.

[blue swede]

I guess that I'm going to have to vote for the German HE177 Grief bomber.

The rational is that it served as:

strategic bomber,

tacticaul bomber,

anti-shipping bomber,

anti-shipping rocket platform,

anti-tank attack aircraft,

reconnissance aircraft,

relief drop aircraft

and transport.

[Erich]

an you have it proven with what SG that the Greif appeared as an anti-tank a/c ? you are misguided I believe