Lancaster Vs. B-24

[Haztoys]

Just was wanting to know is ...

"What plane did the Germans 'feel' was EZer to bring (shot) down" The B-24 or the Lanc??

Thanks David

Hazardous Toys inc

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Haztoys

Just was wanting to know is ...

"What plane did the Germans 'feel' was EZer to bring (shot) down" The B-24 or the Lanc??

Thanks David

Hazardous Toys inc

Good Question! Erich, any info?

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Originally Posted by wmaxt

The Ball turret was about 1,200lbs + 200/250 for the gunner and his personal equiptment then 750 rds x 2 + oxygen + aircraft structure to support it. Similarly the waist gunners 250lbs ea. + personal eqpt (parachute, heated suite, etc) + mg +750rnds (typ)+ oxygen etc. call it 800/1,000lbs ea plus any armor for blind spots or fairings. Rough count 1,800/2,000lbs for a ball turret and 800/1,000 for each waist gun or about 3,600/4,000lbs total. that adds up to approximately 1 ton of bombs for an additional 200/400mi radius. That is signifigant to me.

SYS if you look at my post just above yours you'll see that I rated the B-17s bombay as the most restrictive and the huge bombay on the Lanc as its greatest feature.

wmaxt

the british weren't fans of waist gunners, the only plane the really had them was the wimpy, mainly because they're spray and prey weapons, baisically very inaccurate, british prefered turrets, so waist gunners would not be fitted, and secondly that's data for the american ball turrets, which are quite large and heavy, the british ventral systems were much smaller and lighter, as the gunner didn't sit in them, reducing weight further, furthermore, the british ventral turrets were fed from two 500 round boxes. Normally the rear turret's 4 guns were each fed by 2,500 rounds EACH! giving well over two minutes firing time, as this much was very rarely needed, the ammo count of two of the rear guns was reduced to 2,000 rounds each, the spare 1,000 rounds for the ventral guns- result? no extra weight for ammo! i'll look for figures on the weight of the actual turrets...........

[wmaxt]

Lanc,

That may be so, but a pacific/daylight model may be a different thing altogether - remember were talking about equiping similar to the US daylite bombers in this sub-discussion.

If you can come up with a weight for a british ventral turret - great! I'll bet the extra motors and servos to complete the required functions match the weight of having a man in it. The gunner etc weight still remains the same, as does the ammo weight, subtracting from another station (normaly done or not) is not acceptable it may have been deemed required in its new role. Ammo weight is not minor either, the P-47 left 48% of its ammo behind if it was carring more than 500lbs on the wings!

wmaxt

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Haztoys

Just was wanting to know is ...

"What plane did the Germans 'feel' was EZer to bring (shot) down" The B-24 or the Lanc??

Thanks David

Hazardous Toys inc

I think it would be a toss up. The B-24 had better defensive armament meening it would be harder for the Luftwaffe fighters to get to the formations to shoot them down but the B-24 was also prone to going up in flames easily.

[syscom3]

The B24's operated in the ady, making it far easier to shoot at it from any angle. The Lancs operated at night where they could sneek up on it.

The B24's had a weak wing, but the dual pilot system no doubt saved more than one plane from being shotdown. The Lancs single pilot setup meant that was a weak point.

Adler is right, its a toss up.

[FLYBOYJ]

Wow, I think we're in agreement!

[cheddar cheese]

But the lanc can outmanoever them if it detects the Luftwaffe early enough...

[Erich]

here for a moment only today it appears........

When both the Lanc and the B-24 were flown at night they were easily brewed up by Schräg waffen of German Nachtjägers as niether had a belly turret to forewarn the crew.

As to Lancasters flying in day formation I am not sure if the ops were deviated from night time flying formation ? B-24's on the other hand flew in tight "pulks" or boxes but the GErman day fighter guys that I have interviewed felt they were easy to knock down from the rear same as the B-17's, once the tail gunners position was knocked out, it was then attacked toward the inboard wing and engine or both engines on one side of the heavy bomber. It must be said that the German pilots knew as they flew through the US bomber formations that they would receive a full fullsaide of fire from the waist gunners station, so yes this position on the bomber was certainly needed. Maybe not so with RAF night time characteristics but you can be well aware that the tail position was probably given too much responsibility in issuing warnings to pilot/co-pilot. Had there been the waist positions in place then some relief and of course a much better standing of looking out for the protection of the craft and crew as a whole when German nf's were flying about. Besides the belly turret position was a necessary installation one never fully resolved till wars end and thus the demise of too many RAF bombers both Lancs and Halibags

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by cheddar cheese

But the lanc can outmanoever them if it detects the Luftwaffe early enough...

I dont think any four engined bomber is going to out maneuver a fighter.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by syscom3

I dont think any four engined bomber is going to out maneuver a fighter.

Wanna Bet?!?

"Perhaps at this point I should say that I flew both airplanes and preferred the Liberator. The B-24 was faster than the B-17, but it could not reach the altitudes that the Fortress could. (A fact that the Lib pilots envied.) The B-24 was heavier on the controls than the B-17, but its response was crisp and instant when properly rigged (although not many were.) Unlike the later B-29, which I also flew, the lateral control response on the B-24 was instant, and it was a highly maneuverable aircraft. I surprised many a P-38 pilot when, with a lightly loaded Lib, I could drop half flaps and turn inside of the Lightning."

http://members.aol.com/dheitm8612/requiem.htm

[syscom3]

You do it once and the fighter comes around for another pass. Of course you have also now bled off a lot of energy doing it and youre not going to pick up airspeed quickly unless you dive. And you can only do that for so many times before you run out of altitude.

Now try doing it when filled up with full tanks and bombload.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by syscom3

You do it once and the fighter comes around for another pass. Of course you have also now bled off a lot of energy doing it and youre not going to pick up airspeed quickly unless you dive. And you can only do that for so many times before you run out of altitude.

Now try doing it when filled up with full tanks and bombload.

Not a thing to do with a full bomb load, HOWEVER

We're talking about turning if you're able to add more power you could remain in the turn without loosing altitude or airspeed and keep the same bank angle....provided you keep half flaps....

[cheddar cheese]

Also, remember Lancasters are generally accepted as the most manoeverable 4 engined heavy. Also remember the fact that night fighters arent expected to be manoeverable as dogfighting at night didnt really exist, Lancasters on many occasion managed to shake Ju-88's and suchlike by out manoevering them. Ok it didnt always work and doing it with a bombload will make things harder, but it did happen.

[syscom3]

Once a fighter has a visual on a 4 engine bomber, it will be able to maneuver at will and put it in its gun sight.