Lancaster Vs. B-24

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

the only reason the B-24 carried out that role was because there was a surplus of them, the lanc was capable of doing this role as was proved by her superior range and the fact she carried out these exact roles post war...........

[Emac44]

Originally Posted by davparlr

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.

By no means am i dismissing b25 crews and what work was performed by them. but we are comparing a daylight bomber to a night time bomber and both had their individual duties to carry out. i would never make disparging remarks about b25 crews then i would lancaster crews. but if you are to say b25 crews were the only ones to do anti submarine work you would be dismissing wellington crews and also air crews from say cataliners and other flyingboats squadrons that performed valuable work in anti submarine warfare. but i am willing to admit that all aircrews regardless of what they were flying and what theatre of operations they flew in did the job they were given or subjected to perform. its not up to us sitting in peacetime tosay which is the better aircraft or not but to the men who flew them and the groundstaff who prepared them for battle and the companies who manufactoured them. without ground crews and aircrews the aircraft no matter what was just another aeroplane sitting at a tarmac etc. it was the individual crews that made the aircraft preform to the duties that were called upon by them to do and let us not forget that. i read some of the earlier comments in this debate. some fantastic photos of production thank you syn and flyboy for those photos they were wonderful, but it was down to aircrews and ground crews to deliever those said aircraft whether being b25s or lancasters to the target that was selected. it was men and women working together in conjunction for a set purpose and unfortunately it was due to war that this was performed. can we at least remember them and give homage honour and respect for those who served not just on b25s and lancasters but for all servicemen and women regardless of the country

yes i am a lancaster fan unabashed for sure because of my father being a lancaster gunner. but he taught me one thing. give honour and respect to all crews regardless to whence they come from. and give honour and respect to those who did not return whether they are posted missing or killed in action. as one forum writer has on his signiture. They gave their today for our tomorrow. and its a sediment i couldn't agree more so. I came late into this debate but i think we are missing an essential point here b25 and lancaster crews did their individual jobs and that is something we have to be proud of. because i know i am proud of my father serving his country as a lancaster gunner. can we agree to disagree but agree on one thing without these men and women during WW2 regardless of being a humble machinist at a factory or a gunner or a pilot or even a ground crew armourer they all performed valuable work and did so to our gratitude and our future. to which we owe so much

[Emac44]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

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.

Couldn't agree more so

[Emac44]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ***

the only reason the B-24 carried out that role was because there was a surplus of them, the lanc was capable of doing this role as was proved by her superior range and the fact she carried out these exact roles post war...........

I will give you one thing me old mate. did you start a rumble in the jungle with this debate right from go to whoa hahaha

[syscom3]

The B24 was superior to the Lanc in the PTO.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

again because there was a surplus of them available to send out there, why not compare the aircraft from the same theatre? and the figures for each aircraft used have, for the most part, been for the entire war in every theatre, and the lanc still carried more per sortie, more per aircraft lost and more in total, not only that she had a far greater payload-to-range than the B-24 and could flat out carry more! and that's just their bombing performances! so far the only reason you've been able to come up with as to why the lanc couldn't operate in the PTO was the fact she had four of the most reliable inlines of the war! on top of this your much loved P-38 and P-51 served in the PTO with their inlines without issue........

[ndicki]

The only significant reason the Lanc was not used in the FEAF/SEA (PTO is an American term, so inappropriate for the Lanc!) is a simple question of availability and priority. Priority went to the destruction and defeat of Nazi Germany, so that is why the limited number of Lancs available (a question of ressources, not any indicator of some spurious superiority) were used to that end.

RAF and SAAF Liberators were used in the Med, again owing only to questions of availability, and RAF Libs in SEA. Once the Germans had been defeated, the Liberator would have been quickly replaced in the FEAF with Lancasters B.MkI(FE) and B.MkVII(FE), or even, had it lasted, the B.MkIV - the Lincoln under its earlier name. These Merlin-engined variants were modified or built specifically for Far Eastern operations.

No Liberators were kept on post-war in the RAF, except for a few transport versions.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by Emac44

By no means am i dismissing b25 crews and what work was performed by them. but we are comparing a daylight bomber to a night time bomber and both had their individual duties to carry out. i would never make disparging remarks about b25 crews then i would lancaster crews. but if you are to say b25 crews were the only ones to do anti submarine work you would be dismissing wellington crews and also air crews from say cataliners and other flyingboats squadrons that performed valuable work in anti submarine warfare. but i am willing to admit that all aircrews regardless of what they were flying and what theatre of operations they flew in did the job they were given or subjected to perform. its not up to us sitting in peacetime tosay which is the better aircraft or not but to the men who flew them and the groundstaff who prepared them for battle and the companies who manufactoured them. without ground crews and aircrews the aircraft no matter what was just another aeroplane sitting at a tarmac etc. it was the individual crews that made the aircraft preform to the duties that were called upon by them to do and let us not forget that. i read some of the earlier comments in this debate. some fantastic photos of production thank you syn and flyboy for those photos they were wonderful, but it was down to aircrews and ground crews to deliever those said aircraft whether being b25s or lancasters to the target that was selected. it was men and women working together in conjunction for a set purpose and unfortunately it was due to war that this was performed. can we at least remember them and give homage honour and respect for those who served not just on b25s and lancasters but for all servicemen and women regardless of the country

By no means was making an argument for the superiority of the B-24 over the Lancaster. I was only replying to your comment that seem to imply that the Lancaster was flexible and the B-24 was not. Personally, I think the Lancaster was a superior to the B-24 as a heavy lifter but I would perfer to be in a B-24 in the daytime, unless, of course, you traded off some of that load carrying weight on the Lanc for more 50 cals.

As far as the comment on the RAF keeping the Lancaster and not the B-24, if the RAF had B-29s I suspect that the Lancs would have also been relegated to the boneyard.

As everybody said, the planes were great but the real heros were the ones that climbed in and flew and fought and made these aircraft great. When measured against them, we mostly come up short.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The B24 was superior to the Lanc in the PTO.

And the B-24 was superior to the Space Shuttle in the PTO...

[Emac44]

Originally Posted by davparlr

By no means was making an argument for the superiority of the B-24 over the Lancaster. I was only replying to your comment that seem to imply that the Lancaster was flexible and the B-24 was not. Personally, I think the Lancaster was a superior to the B-24 as a heavy lifter but I would perfer to be in a B-24 in the daytime, unless, of course, you traded off some of that load carrying weight on the Lanc for more 50 cals.

As far as the comment on the RAF keeping the Lancaster and not the B-24, if the RAF had B-29s I suspect that the Lancs would have also been relegated to the boneyard.

As everybody said, the planes were great but the real heros were the ones that climbed in and flew and fought and made these aircraft great. When measured against them, we mostly come up short.

Oh no didn't take it any way other than what you said but as i replied and you agreed to it was the crews that made the aircraft great. Not sure if the RAF would have traded Lancasters for b29s and relegated Lancasters to the scrape heap. Lancasters had a record all their own as for example 617's use in dam buster raid tripitz raid and ems canal. not sure if Barnes Wallace would have liked designing a bomb for B29 to carry to a specific targets like mentioned before. I do remember seeing a documentary recently on history channel that RAF had accepted some b17s in early 1942 i think and they were unimpressed with them or use of and relegated them to maritime operations. but one has to remember the RAF had their objectives as per say bomber command and the USAAF had their own agendas. but one thing you are correct about we measure short according to the generation who went through a depression and a world war and you will find in later part of WW2 Lancasters were armed with 50 cals in the tail replacing 4x4 303s brownings but this was only a very minor amount of Lancs fitted with this extra punch. but a night time bomber being as the Lancaster was its only rivals were Sterlings and Halifaxes as 4 engined bombers in use in Europe by the RAF. Any way i am enjoying the debate for what it is but keeping in mind one thing it was the crews not just the aeroplane but a combination of crews aeroplane ground staff fitters turners armourers mets mechanics manufacturers etc etc etc the whole lot that got those aircrafts to target. but i still perfer the Lancaster overall call me biased if you want. once a Lancaster fan always a Lancaster fan and no ofeence to B25s fans or any other aircraft etc

[Emac44]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The B24 was superior to the Lanc in the PTO.

do you want to detail Lancaster Squadrons in Pacific operations as i don't have information on that or are you referring to Lincolns perhaps. and by the way Lincolns were used very effectiviely in Malayan campaign in the 1950s

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I see this thread flairing back up again. We argued this over and over and pretty much everyone is convinced that the Lancaster was superior to the B-24 except syscom.

Having said that the B-24 was a magnificant aircraft as well and due her praise as well.

[ndicki]

The only significant reason for the deployment of the Boeing Washington - for the four years in question - is only that the Lincoln was designed for use with conventional bombs; its bomb bay was therefore long and relatively shallow, compared to the squat, deep bomb bays on the B-17, B-24 and B-29 - the very reason why the RAF did not like the American aircraft for bombing ops in WW2. They could not carry large bombs. For a nuclear bomb, however, the Lincoln's bomb bay was rather the wrong shape, and it would have ended up hanging outside, much in the way Grand Slam bombs did on B.I Specials. Not ideal for long distances. The Washington, as shown over Japan, did not have this problem.

To come back to it, No.90 Sqn RAF was the first offensive user of the B-17c/Fortress B.MkI (8th July 1941, against Wilhelmshaven), before the Americans joined the fight, and while Boeing had marketed the aircraft as able to out-fly (especially in terms of ceiling) and out-fight the opposition, this turned out not to be the case. The USAAC had, however, neglected to read the manual, and considered that Fortresses should be used in mutually-supporting formations. By then, the RAF had decided that the Fortress was really not what it needed for bombing operations, and rather than scrap the things, inflicted them on Coastal Command instead after they had made a brief and again unsuccessful tour of Egypt.

The only further use made by Bomber Command of Liberators MkVI et al, and Fortresses MkIIa and III was as radio countermeasures aircraft, with No.100 Group; here, their cavernous bomb bays were modified into R/Os offices, and equipped with all the latest toys.

[syscom3]

I'm reading the group history of the 22nd BG, and am more than ever convinced that the B-24's tandem cockpit layout and far heavier defensive firepower made it superior to the Lanc in the operations in the PTO.

The crappy weather, very long mission times and problematic fighter escort were serious issues to deal with, and the B24 offered capabilities to make a mission successfull.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

the B.MkIV - the Lincoln under its earlier name

the Mk.IV and V lancasters were never given the B. designation, that came later in the war..........