Lancaster Vs. B-24

Gnomey · 01-04-2006, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erich

Ask a vet which a/c was better and they will ALL TELL YOU it was the craft they flew in.

Very Very true.

Agreed.

Erich · 01-05-2006, 11:18 AM

I am still uncertain why all the posting of production on the other thread of the B-24 vs the Lanc. Seems pretty silly to me as both planes were used for the job intended. You guys are beating a dead turnip into salad fixings in my opinion. comparison as to the best for a/c is a useless point. look at all the pages listed and for really what reason ? nobody is going to have a changed mind. you can endlessly quote passages from books and the net because that is what is happeneing and it really isn't your free opinion of the a/c since you were not living in that time frame.

so the figures given for production and graphs of altitude performance just seem like a total bore and really prove nothing. the a/c comparisons can only be done by and with the veterans themselves. the threads like this loose their integrity too fast and continue to show random thought

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-05-2006, 11:35 AM

All the posting about the production was because syscom thinks that because you build 18000 of an aircraft it is easier to build and a better aircraft. It was really pointless and proved nothing.

the lancaster kicks ass · 01-05-2006, 11:39 AM

just like most of sys's arguments

Erich · 01-05-2006, 11:45 AM

gentlemen lets be frank, the majority of posters are going along with his ramblings. say enough and be done with it

FLYBOYJ · 01-05-2006, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erich

gentlemen lets be frank, the majority of posters are going along with his ramblings. say enough and be done with it

Agree - LANCASTER

syscom3 · 01-05-2006, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

All the posting about the production was because syscom thinks that because you build 18000 of an aircraft it is easier to build and a better aircraft. It was really pointless and proved nothing.

I proved plenty. One of them is the Lanc experts didnt have any information about the production untill I made them go dig up the info.

I also proved that the B24 was easier to build as it was put under a mass production technique with phenominal results. The Lanc wasnt, so its just conjecture it could have been done too. Thats among many of the hypotheticals the Lanc has.

Anyway you dice it, nearly 3 times more B24's were produced than the Lanc. One every 56 minutes. What were the Lanc averages? A couple per day?

Glider · 01-05-2006, 12:45 PM

I admit to not understanding what this is all about. The fact that a plane is built at one every 56 mins compared to one every hour and say ten minutes has absolutely nothing to do with how easy it is to build.

Put it another way. If two factories are building the same aircraft one will be faster than the other. The logic that seems to be applied here is that the plane produced in the faster factory is easier to build than plane bult in the slower factory. Am I the only person who thinks this is about as stupid a bit of logic as can Be?

Then to apply this fundamentally madly flawed logic to two different aircraft built in two different countries, in totally different circumstances, make this I would suggest, one of the biggest wastes of time this Forum has ever seen.

Nonskimmer · 01-05-2006, 01:28 PM

Well, like Erich said, this topic has been up, down, and all over the place trying to determine which bomber was better than the other. I'm among those who can't see how production figures determine that exactly, but what the hell.

So what's next, everybody? The chemical composition of the various paints used?

syscom3 · 01-05-2006, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonskimmer

Well, like Erich said, this topic has been up, down, and all over the place trying to determine which bomber was better than the other. I'm among those who can't see how production figures determine that exactly, but what the hell.

So what's next, everybody? The chemical composition of the various paints used?

The B24 was superior in the paint catagory too!

Ever see those assembly ships with the outrageous paint schemes?

Nonskimmer · 01-05-2006, 01:35 PM

Yes I have. Colourful, to say the least.

FLYBOYJ · 01-05-2006, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

I also proved that the B24 was easier to build

No you didn't

syscom3 · 01-05-2006, 04:45 PM

I provided evidence that the B24 could be built in one hour.

The only evidence I saw for the Lanc was a few per day.

Since the British and US industrial engineers were just as smart as each other, theres no other explanation for the faster assembly of thye B24.

The 1944 and 1945 production rates of the Lancs should have been far higher than what they were.

Gnomey · 01-05-2006, 04:56 PM

Just because you can 'build' (should really be assemble) it in an hour doesn't mean it is easier to build. The USA had a huge number of people working on assembling the B-24 from it's components compare that to Britain who had a workforce that was at least a tenth of the size of America's and who where being bombed (something that the B-24 factories didn't risk). By 1944/45 Britain was running out of man-power, there were not enough people to do all the jobs that were needed (the infantry in particular). The British didn't very well to produce the number of Lancasters that they did (alongside other types - more than 20,000 Spitfires alone). Britain did not have the production capacity of the US and as result could not manufacture aircraft (any type) in as a large numbers or as quickly (at least for bombers). The number of people the USA devoted to building aircraft was huge compared to the UK and as a result the number of bombers was more (a lot more) and the time it took to assemble them was less as well, it is all part and parcel of having a huge (almost inexhausible) workforce. You have not provided concrete evidence that a B-24 is easier to build than a Lancaster, just because the took less time over each individual unit and more where built doesn't mean it was easier to build, it means you have a larger workforce (and maybe more efficient production techniques) but not an easier bomber to built.

Glider · 01-05-2006, 05:16 PM

If I can offer another reason. The UK wasn't increasing the production capacity of the Lancaster as it tooling up and preparing for the production of the Lancaster MkIV renamed the Lincon. Massive preperations were going into the mass production of that aircraft in the UK, Canada and Australia to ensure that it was ready for use in the Tiger force against Japan.

This has been mentioned before syscom without comment from yourself.

Also we had to use shadow factories and didn't have secure supplies, communications, power, raw marterials, spare machine tool capacity and couldn't afford the exposure of a production line as it was too vulnerable to attack.

Again this has been mentioned before without comment from yourself although this time you did reply and ducked the points.

You haven't proved that you could build a plane in an hour that is obviously rubbish. You can complete a plan an hour but not build one in an hour.

Others have proved that the B24 was buit in a more productive manner and you don't see the obvious logic in that.

In short you have proved nothing to anyone.