Lancaster Vs. B-24

ndicki · 10-15-2006, 12:06 PM

Range, agreed. Obviously in SEA, the Mossie suffered primarily from limited range (and glue problems).

In Europe, however, I do not think I can agree with you; sophisticated nav kit was clearly adequate in the Mossie, as proven by No.8 Grp's LNSF, and No.5 Grp's Master Bombers. Their record for target identification was second to none.

Tolerance to damage is a function of probability of receiving damage; the Lanc was certainly the sturdiest heavy used in Europe, but far more Lancs, expressed as a proportion of those engaged, were lost per sortie flown. It remains to be seen if the B-29 would be able to operate more cheaply (=effectively) in the same conditions.

How many Mossies would you need to carry the bomb load of one B-29? Well, it says in my little book that a B-29 carried a load of 9072Kg, while the Mosquito B.MkXVI carried 4,000lbs, or pretty well 2,000Kg. So 4.5 Mossies for the same bomb load. It's going to be close... You'll be looking at survivability, loss rates, etc. Hum... Cost to build both in money and man-hours (perhaps more importantly)?

And five aircraft are far less likely to be ALL shot down than one big one.

Also, I'd point out that with the exception of the USAF and the Soviet AF, all other nations have, since the War, dropped the idea of the big bomber to concentrate on the Mosquito style of aircraft. Which may or may not actually mean much...

FLYBOYJ · 10-15-2006, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ndicki

Range, agreed. Obviously in SEA, the Mossie suffered primarily from limited range (and glue problems).

In Europe, however, I do not think I can agree with you; sophisticated nav kit was clearly adequate in the Mossie, as proven by No.8 Grp's LNSF, and No.5 Grp's Master Bombers. Their record for target identification was second to none.

The B-29 had about 5 tons of sophisticated nav and communications gear - it a matter of the bigger plane carrying more, the Mossie couldn't come close. In Europe missions were flown over several hundred miles, in the Pacific missions over several thousand were commonplace, not taking anything away from the Mossie crews, but they were literary operating in their own back yard, especially late in the war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ndicki

Tolerance to damage is a function of probability of receiving damage; the Lanc was certainly the sturdiest heavy used in Europe, but far more Lancs, expressed as a proportion of those engaged, were lost per sortie flown. It remains to be seen if the B-29 would be able to operate more cheaply (=effectively) in the same conditions.

That it would of but the bottom line wood is not an easy structure to work on in the field and it has limited longevity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ndicki

How many Mossies would you need to carry the bomb load of one B-29? Well, it says in my little book that a B-29 carried a load of 9072Kg, while the Mosquito B.MkXVI carried 4,000lbs, or pretty well 2,000Kg. So 4.5 Mossies for the same bomb load. It's going to be close... You'll be looking at survivability, loss rates, etc. Hum... Cost to build both in money and man-hours (perhaps more importantly)?

A B-29 carried 40 500 pound bombs routinely - only the Lancaster came close to this, I don't have man hour costs on Mossie production, but the B-29 was posted here in earlier threads and were in the same range as other "smaller " heavies of the period and the production man hours was shrinking by the time the war ended.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ndicki

And five aircraft are far less likely to be ALL shot down than one big one.

Perhaps, but when you have one big one that could to the job of the 5 and have the weapons system available for 15 years, it's pretty obvious which one is more effective...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ndicki

Also, I'd point out that with the exception of the USAF and the Soviet AF, all other nations have, since the War, dropped the idea of the big bomber to concentrate on the Mosquito style of aircraft. Which may or may not actually mean much...

In today's world true, anti-aircraft systems rendered "big" lumbering aircraft obsolete for the most part, unless one develops an aircraft like the B-1 or the Backfire and operates fast at low level. At the same time an aircraft like the B-52 is used with great effectiveness when air superiority was achieved, this just seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Glider · 10-15-2006, 12:43 PM

Gentlemen.
The honest truth is that you need both types of aircraft to do different jobs.

You wouldn't argue that the Mossie was better than the Lanc so why say it was better than the B29.

Trying to picture a Mossie with a Tallboy is almost as daft as using a B29 for ultra low marker missions.

ndicki · 10-15-2006, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

You wouldn't argue that the Mossie was better than the Lanc so why say it was better than the B29.

AVM Don Bennett actually did...

pbfoot · 10-15-2006, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ndicki

AVM Don Bennett actually did...

well as you have a military background you would have to agree that not all officers are smart

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-15-2006, 01:25 PM

Agreed Glider and FBJ. There is no realistic way to compare the Mossie to the B-29. To do so is absured. 2 different aircraft for 2 different roles. For Strategic bombing the B-29 is the king. It was the most capable, cost effective and got the job done the best.

Hands down can not be argued.

FLYBOYJ · 10-15-2006, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

Gentlemen.
The honest truth is that you need both types of aircraft to do different jobs.

You wouldn't argue that the Mossie was better than the Lanc so why say it was better than the B29.

Trying to picture a Mossie with a Tallboy is almost as daft as using a B29 for ultra low marker missions.

My point....

the lancaster kicks ass · 10-15-2006, 02:10 PM

Quote:

the B-29 was so good the RAF had to use it to close a "gap" in the early 50s.

hey hey hey let's not blow this outta all proportion, we bought 88 to suppliment the Lincoln force until they were built up to sufficient numbers, they were replaced by canberras in the bombing role after just 4 years, they were far outlived in RAF service by Lincolns............

and in the fast precision strike role the mossie had no equal..........

FLYBOYJ · 10-15-2006, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ***

hey hey hey let's not blow this outta all proportion, we bought 88 to suppliment the Lincoln force until they were built up to sufficient numbers, they were replaced by canberras in the bombing role after just 4 years, they were far outlived in RAF service by Lincolns............

Hey, not blowing it out of proportion, just proving a point...

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ***

and in the fast precision strike role the mossie had no equal..........

Agree...

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-15-2006, 03:23 PM

Thats the point though Lanc, neither aircraft was better than the other in there role, but the Mossie was not a strategic heavy bomber.

FLYBOYJ · 10-15-2006, 03:32 PM

Comparing the two aircraft in their designed role is like apples and oranges. Comparing the two aircraft technically is where the B-29 is clearly superior (and I'm not speaking of only size). It was a least a generation a head of the Mossie...

ndicki · 10-15-2006, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbfoot

well as you have a military background you would have to agree that not all officers are smart

Is that a personal comment?

Mind you, it got the thread off again, didn't it? And anyway, I have a soft spot for Mossies.

Emac44 · 10-23-2006, 10:47 PM

Lancaster by a country mile was better aircraft. As most have already said the Lancaster had numerous modifications for example 617s Lancs doing Dambuster Raid but also same Squadron preforming raid on turpitz and also the Ems canal raids carrying 10,000 12,000 and 20,000 grand slams earth quake bombs. something the old Lib could never do. Thats not by any means casting any negative reaction to Lib crews as they too preformed valuable work as any bomber aircraft did. but the Lancaster proved itself a multi roll aircraft. Also was used as pathfinders along with mosquitoes during many raids into Germany and Occupied Territories. So my vote is for the Lancaster

davparlr · 10-24-2006, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emac44

Lancaster by a country mile was better aircraft. As most have already said the Lancaster had numerous modifications for example 617s Lancs doing Dambuster Raid but also same Squadron preforming raid on turpitz and also the Ems canal raids carrying 10,000 12,000 and 20,000 grand slams earth quake bombs. something the old Lib could never do. Thats not by any means casting any negative reaction to Lib crews as they too preformed valuable work as any bomber aircraft did. but the Lancaster proved itself a multi roll aircraft. Also was used as pathfinders along with mosquitoes during many raids into Germany and Occupied Territories. So my vote is for the Lancaster

Don't lightly dismiss the job the B-24 did in closing the Atlantic Gap in antisubmarine work and its general antisubmarine and antishipping work. As a results the B-24 was adapted to the PB4Y patrol aircraft for the Navy and it was also modified to the C-87 configuration for cargo carrying in which it flew the Hump (not the best conversion, but several hundred were built). All in all, I would say this is pretty good adaptablity.

As a point of interest, the Willow Run Ford plant, when up to capacity in 1943, was producing B-24s at the rate of one per hour! This was just one factory building the B-24, albeit the largest in the world.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-24-2006, 12:04 PM

I think for the most part we can agree that the Lancaster was a better bomber than the B-24 and was the best heavy bomber of the ETO. Now having said that the B-24 was a magnificent bomber as well and did a very good job with what it did.