Lancaster Vs. B-24

[syscom3]

Britain kept the Lanc because there was plenty of them and along with the Lincoln they made a good bombing force in the post war years. Not the best but still pretty damn good.

All the roles that the Lanc did postwar were done by the B24 during the war. Lets face it, while the USAF and USN were designing their airplanes a generation removed from WW2, you were still using a WW2 design cause you couldnt afford to design and build your own.

No they would have kept the B-17 and upgraded it, the B-24 would of still ended up as pots and pans albeit in maybe less numbers.

The B17 was withdrawn from service in the PTO for various reasons. The only reason it continued to fly in the ETO was its solid airframe. There was little that could be done to improve or modify the airplane.

If you look at the data you will see that the Lanc has a better payload and range and flies at a similar altitude....

I have never disputed its range and payload.

.....has no electonics (or very little)...

Not true. B17's and B24's were equiped with H2S bombing radar. The Gee or OBOE systems used by the RAF were not effective at the longer ranges they both flew into Germany. The Lanc needed them because it bombed by night. The AAF figured it wasnt worth the effort to install it on the B17/B24's due to they flying during the day.

In the PTO, only the radar bombing system was useable. B24's were equiped with it.

B-24's relied more on the escort than their own defensive guns, had the Lanc been in the same position it would of suffered similarly. With an escort to protect it daylight the Lanc is a much superior bomber than the B-24 being more efficient at the job of dropping bombs.

Ten .50's is a tad more effective in defense than the ten .303's on the Lanc. At least the B24 had the opportunity to knock out an occasional fighter. Plus, the B24 was just marginably able to defend itself without escort in the PTO. The Lanc with its .303's was just a sitting duck.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by mosquitoman

Gnomey, the bouncing bomb's name was Upkeep.

I always thought that a second pilot was a disadvantage because it meant another dead man in every plane that went down. The practice of having 2 pilots was stopped in 1941 (I think) by the RAF but the flight engineer, wireless operator and navigator were trained by the pilot in basic flying in case he was hit

In a single pilot setup, if he is incapacitated for any reason during the mission, the mission is in jepordy. If its shortly after takeoff, then its an abort. If hes killed while approaching the target, perhaps the bomb run cant be performed. If hes wounded or killed and the plane is damaged, then the airplane and crew could be lost beacuse the other crewman were NOT pilots.

[Gnomey]

I will admit that the .303's are if too small a calibre ("peashooters") but Lancs were fitted with .50's before the wars end there was no reason why this could not continue. At night the .303's could ward off enemy night fighters, but during the day they would be vunerable. The one big weakness in my view is the lack of belly gun, although this would hamper the size of the bomb bay, a simple "tunnel gun" fitted at the back (just in front of the tail gunner) or at the front (near the mid upper turret or by the bombardier) would have made a big difference against the Shrage Musik equiped night fighters that Germany had.

[syscom3]

And it flew like a 1972 truck, by admittance by its own pilots

fighters are fighters, bombers are trucks.

Would of should of could of - If the B-17 was a disaster we would of been bombing with B-18s - RIGHT!

True. But the B24 was developed a few years after the B17 first flew. That means the B18 would have been pushed aside. Im talking about 1943/1944 not 1937.

You've proven nothing - I've shown hard data. The B-24 was a dump truck and there were WAY better aircraft around in the post war years, one of them being the Lancaster.

There were way better aircraft around that were doing the roles the Lanc was doing, but doing it even better. The Brits were stuck with what they had.

Thank you but No - if you look into the fact the Lanc had a lower stall speed, landed slower, carried more ordnance, was a better flier, had better engine out characteristics, lended itself to carry more electronics and was not quickly strickened from service despite the Lincoln coming on scene, the Lanc proved to be a better airframe...

But your list doesnt compare the intangibles. PTO performace vs ETO. Radial engine reliability with damage vs inline engines with coolant leaks. pilot fatigue on long missions, etc.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Gnomey

I will admit that the .303's are if too small a calibre ("peashooters") but Lancs were fitted with .50's before the wars end there was no reason why this could not continue. At night the .303's could ward off enemy night fighters, but during the day they would be vunerable. The one big weakness in my view is the lack of belly gun, although this would hamper the size of the bomb bay, a simple "tunnel gun" fitted at the back (just in front of the tail gunner) or at the front (near the mid upper turret or by the bombardier) would have made a big difference against the Shrage Musik equiped night fighters that Germany had.

In the PTO, belly turrets were dispensed with starting with the B17's flying out of the PI and Java. Most B24's Ive seen in pics from the PTO had a tunnel gun setup.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by syscom3

fighters are fighters, bombers are trucks.

And some bombers fly better than others. Because of the B-24's Davis wing, one engine out or any holes in the wing and it flew like a truck with 3 wheels

Originally Posted by syscom3

True. But the B24 was developed a few years after the B17 first flew. That means the B18 would have been pushed aside. Im talking about 1943/1944 not 1937.

Same thing! You're throwing out a would of, could of, should of - bottom line 6,000 B-24s were quickly scrapped, B-17s and Lancaster stayed around for a few more years cause they were just better aircraft...

Originally Posted by syscom3

[

There were way better aircraft around that were doing the roles the Lanc was doing, but doing it even better. The Brits were stuck with what they had.

No they had a choice - they had the Halifax, and access to B-17s and even more B-24s, it wasn't nationalistic pride, the fact was it was a better aircraft....

Originally Posted by syscom3

But your list doesnt compare the intangibles. PTO performace vs ETO. Radial engine reliability with damage vs inline engines with coolant leaks. pilot fatigue on long missions, etc.

Why don't you throw in arctic operations vs. south African operations! It has nothing to do with the better of the two aircraft, only where they operated out of, in fact there was never anything negative shown about the mission capable rate of the Lancaster because of the coolant system. If you really want to get technical concerning engine fluids, although the radial is recognized as being more robust, it carried a dry sump oil system which placed most of the engine oil outside of the engine. The Lanc also had external oil tanks but the Merlin still was a dry sump system, which meant there was always a percentage of oil within the crankcase, knock the oil tank out and the engine will still have an oil sump. Knock out the oil system on a radial, there's no sump - it will seize....The argument is almost null. The Radial engine did have the advantage over the in line but there is nothing shown anywhere that this prohibited Lancaster operations.

If anything, an in line engine was more capable in a quick turnaround. You let a radial engine sit and it develops a condition called hydraulic lock and it had to be cleared by the ground crew before the engine could be started...

Again Sys, you have brought nothing to the table...

[FLYBOYJ]

"At the same time it was a complicated and advanced machine, leading to prolonged pilot training programs and on occasion to severe attrition. Not only was it demanding to fly, even to a pilot fully qualified on the type, but it was eventually cleared to operate at such high weights that take-offs became marginal even with full power on all engines. Flight stability was also marginal, and escape from a stricken machine was extremely difficult once the pilot or pilots had let go of the controls. Moreover, though more modern and in most ways more efficient than the B-17, the overloaded late-model B-24s were hardly any improvement over their more primitive partners, and several commanders, including 'Jimmy' Doolittle, famed commanding general of the 8th Air Force, preferred the old B-17."
http://www.b24.net/aircraft.htm

[FLYBOYJ]

The proven Rolls Royce Merlin engines were much in demand for many types of aircraft. For this reason a version of the aircraft was produced which made use of Bristol Hercules radial engines. Lancasters first flew operationally in March, 1942 and were well received by the RAF aircrew. It was regarded as "a pilot's airplane" which inspired confidence. Evidence of this is the story of a Lanc flight engineer who, having feathered two engines and facing the prospect of flying over several hundred miles of cold, unfriendly ocean, turned to his pilot and said, "I suppose this means we shall be bloody late for breakfast!"

"The finest bomber of the war! Its efficiency was almost incredible, both in performance
and in the way it could be saddled with ever-increasing loads without breaking the camel's back.
The Lancaster far surpassed all the other types of heavy bombers.
Not only could it take heavier bomb loads, not only was it easier to handle,
and not only were there fewer accidents than with other types,
the casualty rate was also consistently below those of other types."

"The Lancaster took the major part in winning the war with its attacks on Germany.
On land it forced the Germans to retrieve from their armies half their sorely needed
anti-tank guns for use by over a million soldiers who would otherwise have been serving in the field.
The Lancaster won the naval war by destroying over one-third of the German submarines in their ports,
together with hundreds of small naval craft and six of their largest warships.
Above all, the Lancaster won the air war by taking the major part in forcing Germany to concentrate
on building and using fighters to defend the Fatherland, thereby depriving their armies of
essential air and particularly bomber support."

http://www.lancastermuseum.ca/lancbomber.html

I agree with all of the with the exception of the Lancaster being the finest bomber of WW2 - that distinction goes to the B-29 hands down!!!

[syscom3]

General Kenney wanted B24's and not B17's.

And of course the Brits would declare the Lanc as the best. No surprise there.

Radial vs inline? No radiators to spring leaks on radials.

[Glider]

Radial vs Inline. You keep saying this, but you know that Lanc has produced loss stats which show that the two planes had identical loss rates so any weakness in having a radial is balanced by other benefits in the Lancaster favour.

Seems as if you are getting picky with the stats again.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

sorry i haven't been here for a few days, busy with homework!

The Lancs superior range and payload offset by the B24's better defensive armorment and two pilot setup

if the B-24's defensive armourment was so good why were so many lost?? i can tell you, because no heavy bomber has a hope in hell of surviving a fighter attack, the fighter can pick and choose when, where and how it's going to attack, and it will go straight for the weakest parts, it the case of most heavies the wings with the fuel and engines, if the B-24's defensive guns were so amazing why weren't they shooting down every single attacker? the lanc's primary defence was darkness, the B-24's primary defence was fighter escort............

although don't get me wrong i know the B-24's guns were better, they just aren't anything special............

The Lanc served longer because there were superior US aircraft to do the postwar work the Lanc did

name an american aircraft that could do what the lanc did for the same price and not just in the bombing role, i'm not saying there aren't better aircraft, just that you never seem to mention anything but the bombers...........

But then, you dont count the Privateers that performed good service for the forest service well into the 80's

that would be because the privateer is not the B-24........

and i seriously suggest you do not get picky over this issue, why? becuase technically the Lancaster is still in service with the RAF today

The brits thought so highly of the Lanc/Lincoln after the war that they asked for (and received) B29's

yes, untill we got more lincolns.............

A privateer is still a B24 airframe

stop the presses!

so, you think that you can redesign half a B-24 and still call it a B-24, but if you give a lancaster radial engines you no longer considder it a lancaster? does that seem odd to anyone else?

and again i wouldn't get picky over the privateer issue, why? because strictly speaking the Lincoln I and II started out as the lancaster IV and V respectively, so i could bring them in as lancs why haven't i yet? because it would be stupid.........

Im more concerned about the 1942-1945 years

during which time the lancaster proved itself to be a superior bomer.........

If Lanc wants to bring up all the fine and dandy roles the Lanc performed, I say the Privateers did an even better job in the more usefull role of fire fighting

that's one more role that a plane we're not even arguing about did and 50% of the tiny fleet crashed anyway, that's without even being shot at, may i suggest you don't write home about this...........

The Lanc's ratings weigh to much on "could have" scenarios

please list the "could have" senarios we've suggested?

Why keep a 1972 truck in your garage when you have a 2006 truck that can do more?

because the 1972 truck is available in numbers, is sufficient for the job, is cheap and needs little or no development costs..........

the bouncing bomb's name was Upkeep

yes but remember it was classed as a mine and not a bomb............

B24's were equiped with H2S bombing radar

in what numers? because most lancs had H2S by the war's end.........

Ten .50's is a tad more effective in defense than the ten .303's on the Lanc

problem is though you don't realise just how small that "tad" is...........

At least the B24 had the opportunity to knock out an occasional fighter

so did the lanc, and obviously many gunners took these opertunities as some got enough confirmed kills to become aces in their own right...........

If its shortly after takeoff, then its an abort

why would the pilot be injured shortly after take off? and if any bomber has a problem after take off it will abort, if it's a serious problem, supposing the pilot of a B-24 is killed shortly after take off somehow, the mission will abort, they wouldn't say "oh well we'll go all the way to germany, we've still got one more pilot"...........

If hes killed while approaching the target, perhaps the bomb run cant be performed. If hes wounded or killed and the plane is damaged, then the airplane and crew could be lost beacuse the other crewman were NOT pilots.

there are numerous stories of how lancaster pilots were seriously injured and they kept going, they could do this because the lanc was quite a forgiving aircraft at times, there's also a story of the pilot being knocked out, and the radio operator and navigator managed to fly the aircraft onto the target, then making it all the way back to england again, not bad going for crewmen who aren't pilots..........

bombers are trucks

numerous lancaster pilots said that the lancaster handled like a much smaller aircraft, they say that concorde handles like a fighter (numerous concorde pilots were infact fighter pilots previously), large doesn't always equal truck.............

Radial vs inline? No radiators to spring leaks on radials

yeah and barely any horsepower, why do you think heavily laden lancs had good engine out charactoristics? becuase of the extra horsepower, the lanc could loose an engine and still have more power than a B-24.........

and why do you keep going on about the radials? more radial engined B-24s were lost than inline engined lancs, given you're logic if it was changed around (b-24s with inlines, lancs with radials, which may i remind you was done) then even fewer lancs would be lost and even more B-24s lost............

Seems as if you are getting picky with the stats again

yes he does, which is odd given he doesn't believe in stats............

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by syscom3

General Kenney wanted B24's and not B17's.

And Doolittle prefered the B-17

Originally Posted by syscom3

And of course the Brits would declare the Lanc as the best. No surprise there.

cause it was!

Originally Posted by syscom3

Radial vs inline? No radiators to spring leaks on radials.

Dry sump vs. wet sump - same argument. There's no evidence that the Lancasters Mission Capable Rate or effectiveness was ever diminished becuase of this - you're grasping at straws!!!!

[syscom3]

Lanc, look at you statistics for both planes. Lancasters flew at night, B24's flew during the day. The B24 loss rate would be lower if it only flew at night and the Lancasters rate would be higher if it flew in the day. I believe in stats when they're put into perspective.

Ten .50's are far more effective than ten .303's, any way you cut it. And if there is one thing we all know about the .303 (or US .30), is it was next to useless against fighters. The .50 was effective at a far longer range than the pop guns carried on the Lanc.

Not all B24's had the H2S as they flew in the daytime in squadrons which meant only a few were needed. If they flew at nighttime, there was no reason to not equip more of them.

Lanc..... If the pilot on a Lanc is incapacitated after takeoff from a stomach ailment or whatever, the mission ends right then. On a B24, the other pilot can takeover flying the plane without interfering with the duties of the other aircrews. And like I said before. A pilot is a pilot. A flight engineer is a flight engineer. Anyone can fly the plane straight and level. But its flying a damaged aircraft through bad weather is where piloting skills come in. And the other crewmen wouldnt have that skill, because if they did, they would be classified as regular pilots.

Radial engines vs radiators? Of course there is. Radiators spring leaks. Lose the coolant. Even sitting on the ground doing nothing, they still do that. Why do you think the USN operated radial engined aircraft exclusively? Cause they didnt want the headaches of operating inline engines. Why did the AAF only want radial engines when there clearly was performance advatnages with inlines? because they didnt want to deal with coolant problems.

[FLYBOYJ]

I agree on the armament issue

Originally Posted by syscom3

Radial engines vs radiators? Of course there is. Radiators spring leaks. Lose the coolant. Even sitting on the ground doing nothing, they still do that. Why do you think the USN operated radial engined aircraft exclusively? Cause they didnt want the headaches of operating inline engines. Why did the AAF only want radial engines when there clearly was performance advatnages with inlines? because they didnt want to deal with coolant problems.

Beside the alledegd problems with in line engines and coolant, another reason the US Navy stayed away from in line engines was becuase it would introduce another fluid within the stores aboard a carrier.

You again proved nothing to show that the inline configuration on the Lancaster was a detrement to its performance -

I've read that the RR Merlin was TBO'd at 150-200 hours, some of the Packard engines in Mustangs were TBO'd at 400 hours. Allegedly the R2800 had wartime TBOs 3x that but in many cases some of the aircraft that utilized them had 2 or 3 engine changes when on an overseas hop.

http://www.practicalmachinist.com/cg...1;t=001242;p=0

Here's a comment from a former RCAF radio operator who flew Lancs in the Paciafic in the post war...

"During WWII I used to listen to a radio program called "L for Lanky" and my hero was Sparks the radio op . Little did I know that about 12 years later I was to be "Sparks" in Lancs for almost 1700 hours . In all that time I NEVER experienced an abort due to a mechanical malfunction although a few test flights got exciting at times . Flying at 300 feet or below over the Pacific Ocean it was comforting to see those four fans turning over . Definitely my favorite aircraft of anything I ever flew in .
Fred Burton Age 67
Oakville, ON Canada - June 26, 2003"

[Nonskimmer]

Interesting. Thanks for posting that, Joe.