Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Best All-Around Fighter of World War II
sentinel28a    10/13/2009 3:38:03 PM
Let's try a non-controversial topic, shall we? (Heh heh.) I'll submit the P-51 for consideration. BW and FS, if you come on here and say that the Rafale was the best fighter of WWII, I am going to fly over to France and personally beat you senseless with Obama's ego. (However, feel free to talk about the D.520.)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
45-Shooter       3/8/2013 12:56:57 AM
More than 150,000 night missions for Lancs and more than 240,000 missions for the USAAF B-17s prooves beyond any doubt that the B-17 was far and away the stronger of the two planes. Then there are both the hundreds of pictures of returning heavily damaged B-17s Vs NO pictures of returning Lancasters with the same level of damage, not to mention the fact that there are no maintenance records of repairing a single Lancaster with that mutch damage on it as there are hundreds of those type of records for repairs to B-17s that exceed any repair ever made to a Lancaster!
So you fave to be honest and face the facts that the Lancaster was the weak sister of the B-24 and not in the same league as the B-17!
then why was the B17 limited to 220mph in a dive and the Lancaster 320mph? you haven't answered that one yet how come a such a weak bomber was allowed to dive faster than your super strong one?
  I do not have a clue and have said so several times, but there are so many reasons that have little to nothing to do with how strong and durrable the plane is!
    how come it lasted in various forms up to the 1970s?
Because the RAF could not aford to replace it with a jet?
your problem is you are narrow minded to the extreme
Not at all! I look at all the data and ask what does it show, Like 156,000 sorties and 608,000 tons of bombs Vs >200K sorties and 640Ktons of bombs with X Lanc losses and Y B-17 losses and so many crew killed in each type and then draw reasonable conclusions. You can not seem to get past the hyperboil to answer just those questions.   
 
It all boils down to the last PP, highlighted in yellow. Until you can answer those questions, any other argument you make is irrealivant.
On the other hand, I have answered those questions and gone beyond to other hypothisys which you argue over the piddling details, but fail to answer the BIG questions;
1. How did approximately the same number of B-17s fly so many more sorties in so much less time if they were not both more reliable and more durrable?
2. How did so many Lancasters get shot down on night missions that the RAF/USAAF and every other expert on the planet thinks were less dangerous than those much larger number of B-17 daylight missions?
Until you can answer these two big questions in detail, everything else is irrealivant!

 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/8/2013 3:33:38 AM
   Like the average bomb load of the entire war time Lancaster missions was 7,795 pounds per sortie!
 
good question when the average WAR LOAD was 10500lbs so either it includes a lot of NON WAR missions or someting is missing - maybe that quote about incedaries not being included in this figure?
 
Until you can explain why this was and why it took about the same mumber of B-17s to fly half again as many missions in about 2/3rds of the time to deliver more bombs on targets, then your arguments are all hollow!
it has been many time but you refuse to either read or understand
 
There were only ~12,000 B-17s made and only about 8000 of them were sent to Europe, the rest were sent to CBI and the South Pacific. So less than 8000 Lancs Vs >8000 B-17s and the Lancs only flew 2/3rds as many missions? Explain that!
maybe that at the peak there were over 2500 B17 operating whilst thier were never more than 700 lanc in service at any time, and given that the Lanc were targeted against major targets whilst the B17 were targetd against lightly defended targets for the majority of the missions
 
Using your own data and admissions, IE that night time bombing was safer than day light bombing and since that the the PRIME MO for both the RAF and USAAF, then the only valid conclusion is that the RAF flew the less dangerous missions and the USAAF the more dangerous ones!
rubbish if you honestly think cologne and Hamburg were easier than comunication airfields and railway sidings in rural france then you are a bigger fool than I thought
 
 Since there is ample evidentuary and analitical proofs to same, then the only logical conclusion is that the Lancaster was a fragile plane at least compaired to the American types.
 
More than 150,000 night missions for Lancs and more than 240,000 missions for the USAAF B-17s prooves beyond any doubt that the B-17 was far and away the stronger of the two planes.
nope it doesnt
  Right!
so you agree that it doesnt good finially some sense
 
  No their is not! I've searched and so have others and to date NO-ONE has posted a single picture of any Lancaster that returned to base with a direct hit from a large caliber AAA shell, or a MAC! Not one picture in all of more than 1,000 total posts on this subject through many threads! Not one!
 
but your own argument says that lack of a picture doesnt mean it didnt happen and the fact that the RAF didt have the same habit as the USAAF of taking photos of damagesi not proof, if you read the combat diaries you will see a different picture (but of course you are to importanat to spend any time researching a subject arent you)
(oh and if you buy the Lancaster at war book you will find a few pics by the way, sorry if they arnt in colour but I am sue you have the crayons)
 
 rubbish and lies
  Then post them!
 
no I am sick and tied of you making claims and then expecting others to do the research it your claims you do the damn research, I think this unwillingness or inability to look dispationately at the data is the reason you do not learn
 
if this was the case why did the USAAF look at the lancaster as THE option should the B29 fail?
  But they did not! They had three other planes in R&D and prototype flying! Search B-32, IIRC.
 
wrong the Lanc was considered and plans actually drawn up for the US production of the Lancaster should the B29 fail

 the B32 was later and as it used the same engines it was as likely to fail if the B29 had

One last time, 156,000 Lanc sorties and 608,000 tons of bombs over how long, Vs 291,508 B-17 sorties with 640,000 tons of bombs over less time.
 
god you never learn do you you have convinced NOONE of your argument and we have provided many sources to discredit it but you return to the same thing time and time again as if it will sudenly prove your argument, for the LAST TIME it does not proved or even support your argument
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/8/2013 3:41:07 AM
 
then why was the B17 limited to 220mph in a dive and the Lancaster 320mph? you haven't answered that one yet how come a such a weak bomber was allowed to dive faster than your super strong one?
  I do not have a clue and have said so several times, but there are so many reasons that have little to nothing to do with how strong and durrable the plane is!
 
yet claims of losses on different types of raids do? you expect anyone to believe this? even a 4 YO can see that logic doesnt work

    how come it lasted in various forms up to the 1970s?
Because the RAF could not aford to replace it with a jet?
 
what like the Vulcan Victor or valiant? or the Canberra that even the USAF liked so much they bought in large numbers?  
maybe it was because it was so good have you thought of that?
 
your problem is you are narrow minded to the extreme
Not at all! I look at all the data and ask what does it show, Like 156,000 sorties and 608,000 tons of bombs Vs >200K sorties and 640Ktons of bombs with X Lanc losses and Y B-17 losses and so many crew killed in each type and then draw reasonable conclusions. You can not seem to get past the hyperboil to answer just those questions.   
 
Not returning to that discredited satement
It all boils down to the last PP, highlighted in yellow. Until you can answer those questions, any other argument you make is irrealivant.
On the other hand, I have answered those questions and gone beyond to other hypothisys which you argue over the piddling details, but fail to answer the BIG questions;
1. How did approximately the same number of B-17s fly so many more sorties in so much less time if they were not both more reliable and more durrable?
 
MORE OF THEM AT A TIME OF LESS DEFENSIVE OPPOSITION - last time I will reply to this argument
 
2. How did so many Lancasters get shot down on night missions that the RAF/USAAF and every other expert on the planet thinks were less dangerous than those much larger number of B-17 daylight missions?
Until you can answer these two big questions in detail, everything else is irrealivant!
 
Maybe that the B17 needed 3 fighters each to esure those daylight missions, when against opposed targets, had a  hope of success without cripling losses
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/8/2013 8:38:25 AM
a few facts (look the word up stewart)
 
firstly the figue used for B17 totnage is in short tons not the long tons of the lancaster figure
2 the figure of 638kt is suspiciously the same figure as given in US official bomb figure for the Heavies flying from th uk (B17 AND B24)
3, the Official US figues have the average US heavy bomber load at 3200lbs
 
4 the peak BC strength in 4 engined bombers was 1400 aircraft, the Peak USAAF was 4200 4 engined Bombers(UK only this does not include the MTO or PTO)
 
5 air losses of Lancaster worked out about 2:1 fighters to flak where possible to attribute, even at the end of the war german nighters wee proving to be very successful the dewindling numbers offset by less airspace to cover, german flak  remained effectve thoughout
 
 
USAAF and BC figures for casualties are amost idenical running about 55000  so as many casualties for the similar tonnage
 
according to official RAF figures the average War load of ALL BC 4 engined bombers in 43 was 6903, by 44 that had gone up to 8250
 
for most of the war the chances of surviving a tour on halifax's was 20% against that of Lancasters of 35%, even with the higher crew survivbility of the Halifax it still means that you had a better chance of survival in a Lancaster
 
BC loss rates dopped by over 50% when retargeted for the invasion (this would probably dropped even further but for the fact that BC still carried out a large number of "City" missions)
 
the USAAF was already carrying out simliar raids to the target list drawnup for the invasion even so its loss rate increased during this period  (athough this could be down to inceases in operations)
 
OBNW
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/11/2013 4:21:01 PM

a few facts (look the word up stewart) firstly the figue used for B17 totnage is in short tons not the long tons of the lancaster figure
 







Jabberwocky       3/10/2013 11:16:01 PM
Some data from the British Bombing Survey Unit
Lancasters dropped 581,270 short tons during WW2.
The average bomb load for the Lancaster was 9,186 lbs (not, 7,795 lbs).
The Lancaster Mk I had a maximum bombload of 15,000 lbs. With this load, it had a range of 1350 miles.
Its maximum range was 1850 miles, with a bombload of 11,000 lbs.
The average bombload per sortie of the USAAF heavies was:
1942: 2,600 lbs
1943: 3,220
1944: 3,960
1945: 4,750
The number of heavy bombers available to Bomber Command (Lanc/Halifax/Stirling) and VIII AF (B-17 & B-24):
Jan-1943: 551: 156
Jul-1943:  975: 670
Jan-1944: 1139: 1667
Jul-1944: 1463: 3645
Jan-1945: 1627: 3115
Jul-1945: 1708: 3300
2 the figure of 638kt is suspiciously the same figure as given in US official bomb figure for the Heavies flying from th uk (B17 AND B24) No, it is not. The Figures from multiple sources, but I just happen to have Ray Wagner's book "American Combat Planes" page 133! B-17 sorties = 291,508 @ 640,036 tons. For the B-24 226,775 sorties @ 452,508 tons of bombs. Just where did you find these numbers for "US Official bomb figure" A source and page, please.
3, the Official US figues have the average US heavy bomber load at 3200lbs Where did you get these figures?
4 the peak BC strength in 4 engined bombers was 1400 aircraft, Your source obviously disagrees with the "British Bombing Survey Unit figures above! Which do you think we should take?
5 air losses of Lancaster worked out about 2:1
German claims dispute this, see Mike Spick's book listing all german Aces, including a list of ALL night fighter aces. Acording to those figures it should be 2-1 Flak-night fighters!
 USAAF and BC figures for casualties are amost idenical running about 55000 
This is also not true! See; USAAF statistical summary

The United States Army Air Forces incurred 12% of the Army's 936,000 battle casualties in World War II. 88,119 airmen died in service. 52,173 were battle casualty deaths: 45,520 killed in action, 1,140 died of wounds, 3,603 were missing in action and declared dead, and 1,910 were nonhostile battle deaths.

Total aircraft losses by the AAF from December 1941 to August 1945 were 65,164, with 43,581 lost overseas and 21,583 within the Continental United States.[78] Combat losses of aircraft totaled 22,948 world wide, with 18,418 lost in theaters fighting Germany and 4,530 lost in combat in the Pacific.[79] The AAF credited its own forces with destroying a total of 40,259 aircraft of opposing nations by all means, 29,916 against Germany and its allies and 10,343 in the Pacific.[80]

Total sorties flown by the AAF during World War II were 2,352,800, with 1,693,565 flown in Europe-related areas and 669,235 flown in the Pacific and Far East.[82]

So, the USAAF flew nearly twice as many sorties for a few less than 50,000 casualties and dropped more than half again as many bombs as the RAF and had <91% of the casualties!
 according to official RAF figures the average War load of ALL BC 4 engined bombers in 43 was 6903, by 44 that had gone up to 8250 So then my calculated figure of 7,795 pounds average bomb load for the entire war, sounds pretty good to me!
??? Lets see, they, the RAF that is, had ~55,000 casualties dropping about a million tons of bombs and the USAAF has <50,000 casualties for just over 1,6 million tons of bombs and you think they were compairable?
This sounds strange to me? I think that someone needs to think these figures through?

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/11/2013 5:18:31 PM
The Figures from multiple sources,
from what I can see they are from the same source and still look suspicious it would mean that the B24 just so happens to drop the same tonnage of bombs from the UK as the B17 did in the MTO
 but I just happen to have Ray Wagner's book "American Combat Planes" page 133! B-17 sorties = 291,508 @ 640,036 tons. For the B-24 226,775 sorties @ 452,508 tons of bombs.
and your Lancaster figures???
 
 Just where did you find these numbers for "US Official bomb figure" A source and page, please
yeah like that's going to happen I am not bothering to do that and then being called a liar by you
 
3, the Official US figues have the average US heavy bomber load at 3200lbs Where did you get these figures?
The Strategic Air Offensive Against Germany 1939-1945", Webster &
Frankland, HMSO, London, 1961.
"Despatch on War Operations", ACM Sir Arthur T Harris, 1945, published
Frank Cass, London, 1995
"Bomber Offensive", MRAF Sir Arthur Harris, Collins, London, 1947.
"Royal Air Force, 1939-1945." Richards & Saunders, HMSO, London, 1953-4,
"Per Ardua, the Rise of British Air Power 1911-1939", Saunders, OUP, London
1944.
"The Right of The Line", John Terraine, Wordsworth Editions, 1997.
"Bomber Squadrons of the RAF..", Philip Moyes, 1976.
"The Bomber Command War Diaries", Middlebrook & Everitt, 1985.
"Army Air Force Statistical Digest (World War II), HQ AAF.1945. (available on
the Internet)
“United States Strategic Bombing Survey, Europe” Summary Report 1945.
"Some of the Many 77 Squadron 1939- 45", Roy Walker, Hollies Publications
of West Wickham 1995
looks like my source has done his research more than can be said of you
4 the peak BC strength in 4 engined bombers was 1400 aircraft, Your source obviously disagrees with the "British Bombing Survey Unit figures above! Which do you think we should take?
thats why you need to do research to see why figures differ, this looks to be down to aircraft assigned to OTU
the 1400 figure was from
ACM Sir A Harris' Despatch and gives the Average Number of Aircraft
in the Squadrons of Bomber Command, Available Daily, with Crew averaged by month
   German claims dispute this, see Mike Spick's book listing all german Aces, including a list of ALL night fighter aces. Acording to those figures it should be 2-1 Flak-night fighters!
really as my copy of his book does not provide enough information to make any such leap
 Total sorties flown by the AAF during World War II were 2,352,800, with 1,693,565 flown in Europe-related areas and 669,235 flown in the Pacific and Far East.[82]
but that is ALL types not just heavies you need to remove medium, light and fighter bombers from that

    So, the USAAF flew nearly twice as many sorties for a few less than 50,000 casualties and dropped more than half again as many bombs as the RAF and had <91% of the casualties!

you need to include all fighter pilots lost as part of the campaign as these are vital, without those fighter escorts the losses would have curtailed daylight raids in 43

So then my calculated figure of 7,795 pounds average bomb load for the entire war, sounds pretty good to me!???

so in a year they went up by >1300 and you had another year of increasing numbers of bomber available and yet your average is only 1000lbs more than it was in 43? your figures are looking worse all the time

 RAF that is, had ~55,000 casualties dropping about a million tons of bombs and the USAAF has <50,000 casualties for just over 1,6 million tons of bombs and you think they were compairable? 
not on those figures but then again you are not using the same data criteria are you

 his sounds strange to me? I think that someone needs to think these figures through? 

yep I agree but I doubt you will as it will require some research and we know you think that it is beneath you to actual do research you would much rather just make it up

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/11/2013 6:02:17 PM

Ray Wagner's book "American Combat Planes" page 133! B-17 sorties = 291,508 @ 640,036 tons. For the B-24 226,775 sorties @ 452,508 tons of bombs.
and your Lancaster figures???
From Wiki and several other sources that are all more than those from the "Official" British Bombing Survey Unit which is about 40-50Kt less than those found in the open source realm. But in one of the prior posts, someone posted the RAF's  British Bombing Survey Unit. which as I pointed out above, was substantially less! I do not care which unit/list we use! In either case, the RAF dropped much less bomb tonnage than the USAAF. It is my belief that they were hampered by their use of a fighter plane engine in their heavy bombers. No-one of substance has ever claimed that the Merlin had a great TBO of much over 3-400 hours! Yet the Wright Cyclone of 1933 had a TBO of >500 hours and by 1939 it was over 800 hours. Most other American and British Air Cooled Radials had similar TBOs, ALL much longer than any version of the Merlin!
 Just where did you find these numbers for "US Official bomb figure" A source and page, please
USAF Historical Website. The Museum of the USAF. Ray Wagner's American Combat Planes, Wiki. and many other well documented sources! See the list of source foot notes in Wiki to get a hint of the depth and width of the documentation on this!
3, the Official US figues have the average US heavy bomber load at 3200lbs Where did you get these figures?
If this is true, it means that the USAAF flew three times as many sorties as the RAF instead of only twice as many?
I see that you used some of the same sources that I sited, how do you explain that the numbers above do not match between those that I have axcess to like the "(Army Air Force Statistical Digest (World War II), HQ AAF.1945. (available on
the Internet)" which lists 640,508 tons dropped durring 291,508 sorties by B-17s in Europe, which works out to 4,391 pounds per sortie!
 
   German claims dispute this, see Mike Spick's book listing all german Aces, including a list of ALL night fighter aces. Acording to those figures it should be 2-1 Flak-night fighters!
really as my copy of his book does not provide enough information to make any such leap
You also need to have the Spick book Fighter Aces and use the formuli there to extrapolate. But in any case, there is no possible way that more than half of all RAF losses in nighttime raids was as much as half of all casualties! flew nearly twice as many sorties for a few less than 50,000 casualties and dropped more than half again as many bombs as the RAF and had <91% of the casualties! you need to include all fighter pilots lost as part of the campaign as these are vital, without those fighter escorts the losses would have curtailed daylight raids in 43
That does include all casualties! We lost about HALF as many bomber crew casualties as the RAF and flew many more missions! Almost twice as many missions! No mater which source you claim, the RAF had many more casualties per sortie as the USAAF. 
 
The RAF numbers are ~55,000 casualties from Bomber Command alone while the USAAF lost about half that number from bombers and about 50,000 total casualties in combat, including fighters!
This is the single most telling factiod about RAF planes and in my opinion the Merlin which was a frail and very easy engine to damage when compaired to the Air Cooled Radials used by everyone!
How else can you explain such a HUGE disparity in casualty rates?
Lets not fight about the numbers of dead, but instead try to come to a conclusion about why that was?

 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/11/2013 6:19:35 PM

then why was the B17 limited to 220mph in a dive and the Lancaster 320mph? Yes I did answer that one. But you obviously did not like it. I said " I do not have a clue!" There are many reasons why they might do that and I do not have a clue as to why that was. But in retrun, how can you explain thet RAF's BC took more than twice as many casualties as the USAF Heavy bombers? Like I said, lets talk about the why of things that can not be disputed. ( 55,000 BC casualties Vs <30,000 USAAF bomber casualties and <50,000 TOTAL!)
 

  I do not have a clue and have said so several times, but there are so many reasons that have little to nothing to do with how strong and durrable the plane is!

what like the Vulcan Victor or valiant? or the Canberra that even the USAF liked so much they bought in large numbers?  
  Just one quick question; How many of all of those types did the RAF buy compaired to how many B-57s did the USAF buy?

your problem is you are narrow minded to the extreme
Not at all! I look at all the data and ask what does it show, Like 156,000 sorties and 608,000 tons of bombs Vs >200K sorties and 640Ktons of bombs with X Lanc losses and Y B-17 losses and so many crew killed in each type and then draw reasonable conclusions. You can not seem to get past the hyperboil to answer just those questions.    
It all boils down to the last PP, highlighted in yellow. Until you can answer those questions, any other argument you make is irrealivant.
On the other hand, I have answered those questions and gone beyond to other hypothisys which you argue over the piddling details, but fail to answer the BIG questions;
1. How did approximately the same number of B-17s fly so many more sorties in so much less time if they were not both more reliable and more durrable? 
MORE OF THEM AT A TIME OF LESS DEFENSIVE OPPOSITION - last time I will reply to this argument
That makes absolutely no sence at all!
 Are you stating that the RAF failed to fly every mission they could? So, if not, then they both flew as many missions as they could bassed on the availibility of the aircraft! There were about as many RAF Bomber/days availible in relation to the tonnage of bombs dropped as there were to the Americans in relation to their bomb tonnage dropped! You have no proof that the RAF flew harder or longer missions, but on the contrairy, most have admitted that the Night missions were easier than daylight missions. So that leaves only one viable conclusion. The Air Cooled Radial types were more reliable than the LC Types! Since this agrees well with the general Mythos of the time, even into now that they were more reliable than their LC counterparts! 
 2. How did so many Lancasters get shot down on night missions that the RAF/USAAF and every other expert on the planet thinks were less dangerous than those much larger number of B-17 daylight missions?
Until you can answer these two big questions in detail, everything else is irrealivant!
Maybe that the B17 needed 3 fighters each to esure those daylight missions, when against opposed targets, had a  hope of success without cripling losses
    I have never said this whas not true! But it is not an explanation of how some planes flew twice as many missions per bomber/day!


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/11/2013 6:23:36 PM

firstly the figue used for B17 totnage is in short tons not the long tons of the lancaster figure
This source disputes the Long Tons myth! British Bombing Survey Unit! They were ALL in short tons back then! no one outside of the shipping industry used long tonnes!
4 the peak BC strength in 4 engined bombers was 1400 aircraft, the Peak USAAF was 4200 4 engined Bombers(UK only this does not include the MTO or PTO)
See the above source in Red Highlight to dispute this claim!
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc    Data culling.   3/11/2013 8:02:30 PM
Total casualties for all bombers (UK) were cited versus casualties for (USAAF).

Roughly equivalent. The UK flew more dangerous missions, under more dangerous conditions against a tougher defense. The evidence presented this far proves this. Being able to shoot back in daylight over France was safer than night over Germany 

As to casualty data:

The casualty rates can be examined as casualties
;per sortie unit,

:per 100,000 hours air-flight time (the usual modern measurement)

You can find that by type.

Prediction: you will find the two air forces B-17 versus Lancaster will be comparable.

Note on flying speed limits;

The B-17s control systems froze and wings tore off in a dive under burden over 300 knots.

The Lancaster's didn't.

The Lancaster was the better built plane as far as flying characteristics. 

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics