Lancaster Vs. B-24

[syscom3]

And the only reason that the Lanc/Lincoln was not used had nothing to do with its obsolescence - rather with the fact that Japan surrendered before they could be deployed.

We had another thread that showed the B29 and B50 were both far more advanced than the Lincoln. Both the Lanc and Lincoln were outclassed by Aug 1945, although the Lincoln had enough potential to be usefull for a year or so longer.

[syscom3]

not to many high mountains in pacific countries where aircrews were stationed in the pacific with only a few exceptions being PNG (Papua New Guinea) Owen Stanley region.

The Owens Stanley's were impediments for all aircraft throughout the war. Even after the war ended, planes were still dissapearing ito the mountains. The islands of the Halmereah's and Celebes had high enough mountains that made navigation over them dicey.

and these were short missions as 2 engine bombers were used for example beuafighters and beuaforts used by RAAF single engine fighters as well like spitfires hurricanes and kittyhawks etc.

The raids against Balikpapen in 1943 and 1944 were of 1300-1600 mile missions, one way. The there were the raids from the PI against Vietnam that were long enough to as not have fighter escort. There simply were not enough P38 groups available to cover every missions.

But if you are referring to other pacific islands not seen to many with exceptionally high mountains to bother aircrews as you are claiming. and the only island i can think of in pacific with high mountain would be iwo jima.

I'm, not referring to those islands. Although, I would like to point out that the PI has some impressive mountains in the north.

all said and done flying over europe in total darkness with primitive naviagation aids compared to today standards with anti aircraft fire and search lights coming up at you plus with the threat of constant night fighters with primitive radar detection system that had successes. i would compare both flying over europe day or night or flying over pacific islands or asia as equally hazardous to air crews. me thinks you are making moutains out of mole hills or either that playing devil's advocate just because you can to see what reaction you get to this i believe its just a game to you and you are stirring the pot hahaha

The missions over Europe were simpler from a navigation standpoint. If you got lost, you just had to fly west and dead reckoning would put you over the UK. If you had the "balls" to go low enough, you could pick out geographic features to get an approx. fix. In the PTO, you didnt have that luxury. The jungle and ocean all looks the same. And the jungle was bad enough that even if you crash landed a couple dozen miles from your base, survival was still dicey.

Syscom this is what i believe you are doing just stirring the pot so to speak

I never stir the pot. I make people prove their points beyond a doubt.

[Emac44]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The Owens Stanley's were impediments for all aircraft throughout the war. Even after the war ended, planes were still dissapearing ito the mountains. The islands of the Halmereah's and Celebes had high enough mountains that made navigation over them dicey.



The raids against Balikpapen in 1943 and 1944 were of 1300-1600 mile missions, one way. The there were the raids from the PI against Vietnam that were long enough to as not have fighter escort. There simply were not enough P38 groups available to cover every missions.



I'm, not referring to those islands. Although, I would like to point out that the PI has some impressive mountains in the north.



The missions over Europe were simpler from a navigation standpoint. If you got lost, you just had to fly west and dead reckoning would put you over the UK. If you had the "balls" to go low enough, you could pick out geographic features to get an approx. fix. In the PTO, you didnt have that luxury. The jungle and ocean all looks the same. And the jungle was bad enough that even if you crash landed a couple dozen miles from your base, survival was still dicey.



I never stir the pot. I make people prove their points beyond a doubt.

now put simply you are considering that balkippan was in the same context as say and other island groups you mentioned are mostly formed parts of the arufua sea south china seas and philippines seas. balkippan is also part of indonesia as well as the celebes island group and are in indian ocean sea area of operation and not considered to be part of pacific. as these areas are more definable by day light and by naviagation it would be considerabley more easier for a good naviagator to pick out points of reference during day light hours then it would for a good navigator to pick up points of reference in total darkness over as land mass pinported with anti aircraft search light and night fighters to harass you over the entire trip. as for your reference to aircraft being lost in Papua New Guinea Owen Stanleys that is correct. Yet you forgot that over Dutch Coastal areas allied and axis aircraft have been lost never to be found and this was on flat coastal terrain and your point is. How those aircraft became lost is either to battle damage or other reasons. the point being you haven't proved one bit a b25 is any better than an avro Lancaster or the crews being better. You have just gone on rhetoric with your head in the sand. Lancasters didn't serve in the Pacific War but served in Air war in Europe and as such were proved to be versitile in their use to the RAF and her Commonwealth Air Forces. I am getting definite impression from you if it isn't from the US then it isn't any good. Well unfortunately and I will be blunt. If i am correct in what i am thinking then your attitude needs adjusting some what towards allies as the RAF and Commonwealth Allied Airforces performed the duties with the equipment they were given. as for your last part of your posting you haven't proved anything. Just rhetoric. as for others posting their replies i tend to take their view point that you are being an *** to the extreme

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Emac44

now put simply you are considering that balkippan was in the same context as say and other island groups you mentioned are mostly formed parts of the arufua sea south china seas and philippines seas. balkippan is also part of indonesia as well as the celebes island group and are in indian ocean sea area of operation and not considered to be part of pacific.

They were considered part of the PTO. In WW2, the dutch east Indies were considered as part of the PTO for planning and operations. Even the Aleution's were considered part of the PTO.

as these areas are more definable by day light and by naviagation it would be considerabley more easier for a good naviagator to pick out points of reference during day light hours then it would for a good navigator to pick up points of reference in total darkness over as land mass pinported with anti aircraft search light and night fighters to harass you over the entire trip.

The missions in Europe were shorter and there were plenty of land masses to take a fix. And the one big drawback of operating over the ocean without nav aids is how easy it is to get lost.

.....Yet you forgot that over Dutch Coastal areas allied and axis aircraft have been lost never to be found and this was on flat coastal terrain and your point is How those aircraft became lost is either to battle damage or other reasons.

The aircraft lost in the Dutch Coastal regions were due to battle damage, not because an aircraft got lost in a cloud and flew into a mountain.

the point being you haven't proved one bit a b25 is any better than an avro Lancaster or the crews being better. You have just gone on rhetoric with your head in the sand. Lancasters didn't serve in the Pacific War but served in Air war in Europe and as such were proved to be versitile in their use to the RAF and her Commonwealth Air Forces. I am getting definite impression from you if it isn't from the US then it isn't any good. Well unfortunately and I will be blunt. If i am correct in what i am thinking then your attitude needs adjusting some what towards allies as the RAF and Commonwealth Allied Airforces performed the duties with the equipment they were given. as for your last part of your posting you haven't proved anything. Just rhetoric. as for others posting their replies i tend to take their view point that you are being an *** to the extreme

I have said the Lanc was the better of the two in the ETO. And I found the proof by myself and not by what others said. Now just because the Lanc was better in Europe doesnt mean it was better in the Pacific. Just like the P51 was the best long range allied fighter in Europe doesnt mean it was the best in the PTO either.

And I have never said that the Lanc was inferior because of the crew or eqmt. Now show me where in the past 3809 posts where I said such a thing.

And its pretty early for a newbie to call me an ******* when obviously you havent read even a tiny fraction of the many threads of contributed to this forum.

Now thicken your skin, debate the issues and dont namecall. It makes you look like a schmuck.

[Kiwikid]

Thanks FlyboyJ ... It wasn't just me who thought that. The early C-130A/B Hercules had the same problems with Curtiss propellors.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Not true. Youre comnparing apples with banana's.

The Lanc and B24 were "peers".

The above mentioned fighters were jet propelled, thus a magnitude better than the B24 or Lanc.

And people here have produced evidence that the F4U might have been the best fighter in the PTO.

No syscom, absolutely not. Using your logic it does not matter. Any aircraft that flew in the PTO was superior than the ETO aircraft. Maybe you need to word your feeble arguements better.

That makes no sense since the Luftwaffe is proven more deadly than the Japanese airforce and navy aircraft.

Besides the Lanc had to deal with the Luftwaffe night fighters which were very deadly and advanced.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The missions over Europe were simpler from a navigation standpoint. If you got lost, you just had to fly west and dead reckoning would put you over the UK.

Have you ever tried to deadreckon nave an aircraft in total darkness. It aint as easy as you think it is, especially when all the lights of the cities are blacked out.

Have some experience in the topic before you call something easy...

Originally Posted by syscom3

If you had the "balls" to go low enough, you could pick out geographic features to get an approx. fix.

Not at night you cant. Those features that you pic out, you fly into them before you can pick them out if you are low eneogh. Ive got plenty of low level experience in Europe at night and I dont think the features have changed much since 1943.

Originally Posted by syscom3

I never stir the pot. I make people prove their points beyond a doubt.

Yeah for the most part you do make some interesting conversations and that is why I like you, but you have to admit you are very very biassed.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

But thats a combined night/day rate

no no i can assure you it's not, the combined day/night rate is something like 2.4%, for the lanc's 40,000+ daylight missions the loss rate was 0.7% ................


i can't really quote much more from the last couple of pages because you haven't been debating anything particularly relivant, yes there are mountains in the PTO, but one of the novelties of an aircraft is that you can go over or around them, they would be no more a problem for the lanc as the B-24

next is this crap about navigation, are you claiming the lanc wouldn't be able to operate in the PTO because you can't navigate in a lanc but you can in a B-24 bigger map table is there there was no problems with RAF navigation, if you can navigate your way in a B-24 you can do it in a lanc as well so why're we arguing about this

and syscom we've proved our points over and over, the only reason you can give for the lanc not being able to operate in the PTO was the fact she didn't have a co-pilot, which as we have discussed is easily fixable, other than that the lancaster was a supperior bomber in terms of load carrying and range so why couldn't she operate in the PTO?

[ndicki]

And if the Lincoln - and therefore the Shack - were already out of date before they even entered servoce, why did the RAF chuck the Washington at the first possible opportunity?

[ndicki]

Actually, Lancs as a whole had a far better navigation and radar defence suite ( K2S, Gee, LORAN, Oboe, Monica, etc) than American aircraft because they had to navigate individually to the target and back, rather than in a big herd like the USAAF by day.

And if you feel that that somehow makes the Liberator a better crate, I really do not see why.

[Emac44]

Originally Posted by syscom3

They were considered part of the PTO. In WW2, the dutch east Indies were considered as part of the PTO for planning and operations. Even the Aleution's were considered part of the PTO.



The missions in Europe were shorter and there were plenty of land masses to take a fix. And the one big drawback of operating over the ocean without nav aids is how easy it is to get lost.



The aircraft lost in the Dutch Coastal regions were due to battle damage, not because an aircraft got lost in a cloud and flew into a mountain.




I have said the Lanc was the better of the two in the ETO. And I found the proof by myself and not by what others said. Now just because the Lanc was better in Europe doesnt mean it was better in the Pacific. Just like the P51 was the best long range allied fighter in Europe doesnt mean it was the best in the PTO either.

And I have never said that the Lanc was inferior because of the crew or eqmt. Now show me where in the past 3809 posts where I said such a thing.

And its pretty early for a newbie to call me an ******* when obviously you havent read even a tiny fraction of the many threads of contributed to this forum.

Now thicken your skin, debate the issues and dont namecall. It makes you look like a schmuck.

i do appologise for calling you an ***. however i have read most of your post and such. however you seem to think flying in wartime Europe was a walk in the park. it definitely wasn't a walk in the park at all. and some of those aircraft posted missing on the dutch coast which have never been found there is no record for the reason as to why they disappeared at all. battle damage maybe one reason there maybe a myriad of reason as to why aircraft go missing. if the lancaster was to be used in the pacific it would have been done in a way that suited the purposes it was to be used for. seeing it wasn't there is no debate. yet the lancaster was modified to suit purposes that it had to meet. I seem to remember reading about recon aircraft being posted as missing in europe that only recently they recovered along with pilot. europe of all places not a jungle in sight yet pilot and aircraft missing.

the pacific in itself was a different style of warfare. mostly fought over water and between islands etc but hazardous in itself. and had its subsquent dangers. like the japanese executing shot down allied servicemen etc or jungle dieseases if crew came down over land etc. however allied servicemen often faced similar aspects if shot down over german or occupied territory. countless times allied airmen were either shot after bailing out by either german patrols or townsfolk themselves or by the gestapo and especially the gestapo who were infamous in their treatment of prisoners of war

now another area you are ignoring RAF bomber crews if you hadn't realised had already down the england to italy leg on numerous occassions. these were done by crews flying short sterlings and lancasters to turin. not an insignificant flying time or distance by any means and returning to base. 617 squadron also flew from southern european russia to complete bombing missions over tirpitz and return back to england not an insignificant feat in mileage at all. and the mediterrian campaign with also the north african airwar. easy to get lost over desert from the air then water with no points of reference either syns. but you are trying to compare it was easier in europe then it was in pacific. it simply wasn't the case for either theatre of operations syns. the same concurrent dangers occured the same possiblity of not returning from mission was there and the same avenues could befall aircrews no matter where they were fighting. and this is the point most people are trying to make to you. the total allied crews lost in the european air war was comparable in ratio during 1942 to 1945 as 3 months on the somme battlefield in WW1 and casualities on that battlefield. its something you seem to be missing this point casuality rates in european air war were staggering in comparison to other areas. this included all casualities from all allied airforces operating in europe. as it wasn't just british (commonwealth)or american airmen dying but also french and russian and if you add numbers of axis pilots lost the number increases dramatically. and the consquent damage these raids had on european countries themselves, germany for example was systematically raised to the ground from one major city and town to the next and it wasn't always strategic in the reasons why a city was selected for targetting. for example dresden in 1945. was bombed not just for it being a transport junction but was bombed for political reason as it has been claimed old joe stalin wanted it done. nurumberg was targetted for what reason syns industrial no political yes. same as berlin itself not for industrial but for political reasons on its own. same as munich and several other cities. can same be said about air war in pacific. yes tokyo was bombed but was the imperial palace nope. could the emperor of japan been a target at the time and low level b29 strikes were occuring. was the USAF navigation that bad over tokyo they couldn't find their way to that part of the city. was the bomb aimer that bad in a b29 that the bombing of the palace couldn't have been done and put the emperors life at peril. after all it was total war and according to you it was somewhat more difficult in the pacific. maybe if it was left to 617 squadron to scratch the emperor of the list as a target it would have been done with no questions as to why not. yet the reichstag in berlin was obliterated and every other building within a radius of 5 miles of the place was flattened. i know tokyo and most other japanese cities were levelled yet some how imperial palace was left alone. and emperor was never a serious target. but we all know german and other axis leaders were always targetted regardless. one wonders why the difference sysn

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and what's more sys stop just putting one quote in each post put them all in one post it's a lame way for you to get your posts up so you can act all high and mighty to the new guys, and on the subject of new guys, you don't have to bother you're only repeating everything that's been said before, so am i really but i suggest you read through all the other countless times we've had this debate for a bit..........

[Emac44]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Have you ever tried to deadreckon nave an aircraft in total darkness. It aint as easy as you think it is, especially when all the lights of the cities are blacked out.

Have some experience in the topic before you call something easy...



Not at night you cant. Those features that you pic out, you fly into them before you can pick them out if you are low eneogh. Ive got plenty of low level experience in Europe at night and I dont think the features have changed much since 1943.



Yeah for the most part you do make some interesting conversations and that is why I like you, but you have to admit you are very very biassed.

at last some one said the biased word tsk tsk tsk Adler

[Emac44]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ***

and what's more sys stop just putting one quote in each post put them all in one post it's a lame way for you to get your posts up so you can act all high and mighty to the new guys, and on the subject of new guys, you don't have to bother you're only repeating everything that's been said before, so am i really but i suggest you read through all the other countless times we've had this debate for a bit..........

its ok Kick i can look after myself in a debate. i admit i shouldn't have called sysc an *** but to me he was coming off as one. my opinion only and sysc i appologise for calling you an ***, you schumack is much better hahaha

[Emac44]

Originally Posted by syscom3

must admit i like that quote myself. b25 was quicker to disappear then a condom in a bangkok whore house. now that is funny fly