Versatile Heavy Bombers

the lancaster kicks ass · 01-01-2006, 03:38 PM

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?

Magister · 01-01-2006, 08:56 PM

I have a better idea. Let's start out with the B-29 vs. the Lancaster. The best Brit vs. the best Yank.

Nonskimmer · 01-01-2006, 09:09 PM

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 · 01-01-2006, 09:19 PM

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.

syscom3 · 01-01-2006, 09:23 PM

How about comparing a tiger force Lanc (with modifications) compared to a B32.

Camarogenius · 01-01-2006, 09:23 PM

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 · 01-01-2006, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

...as post war they were both obsolete.

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.

FLYBOYJ · 01-01-2006, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

How about comparing a tiger force Lanc (with modifications) compared to a B32.

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 · 01-01-2006, 09:44 PM

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 · 01-02-2006, 01:05 AM

Why lower?

Glider · 01-02-2006, 01:11 AM

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

the lancaster kicks ass · 01-02-2006, 03:56 AM

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...........

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-02-2006, 10:53 AM

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.

the lancaster kicks ass · 01-02-2006, 11:10 AM

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

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-02-2006, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

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

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.