# WHich bomber had the best defence



## B-17engineer (Jan 12, 2008)

I mean in terms of fending off fighters..........I personally say B-29.........WOuld the defence matter on what kind of plane ur enemies had like a B-29 faced lightly armored fighters, and The B-24 and B-17 faced more heavily armed fighters.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2008)

Well the B-29 obviously with its fire control system.

Of the aircraft without such a fire control system I would have to go with the B-17.

In the end though we all know this did not prove to be eneogh.

*The Bomber with the best self defence were the ones that were escorted by the most long range escorts.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## plan_D (Jan 12, 2008)

The Mosquito - it just out-ran them.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 12, 2008)

Mosquito....intersting


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 12, 2008)

The B-29, as usual, is in a class of it`s own in this regard as well. IIRC later versions carried a 20mm cannon in the tail, and the guns being remote controlled, could be operated in concert, playing a leathal tune..

The runner ups are the He 177A-5 (which had remote controlled barbette, and 20mm cannons rear/forward to boot), and the much neglected Soviet Pe-8 which also carried 20mms and 12.7mm. 

For me, the 20mm they carried for defense puts these types over the standard US heavies for self defense fire for tail attacks - 
but both of them were much rarer, too in comparison. A 20mm cannon may well stop an attacking fighter dead in it`s tracks before it can attack, a pair of .50s is less likely to do the same before it gets into range, and a fighter can always spit out more rounds than a bombers defensive gun position.

B-17 and B-24, however it should not be underestimated, for they carried an insame amount of guns, and when flying in a formation it, this concentration of firepower proved to be very nasty as all fighter pilots would tell you who flew against these giants. A Combat Box had a very unnerving display of fire, and the sheer amount of tracers flying towards you unnerved many pilots.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Jan 12, 2008)

I unfortunately do not have the source on hand, but I do recall reading many years ago of an experiment by the 8th AAF to remove bomb loads from select B-17s and B-24s, and add several extra .50 machineguns and fill it with ammunition. The purpose of this was to solely to provide extra defensive firepower to a flight of bombers. I'm not sure if they flew in the middle or outer edges of the flight, but I do remember reading that the idea was not too successful as they didn't continue with the idea for very long. 

Perhaps someone else has more information on this?


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 12, 2008)

I thought that was the YB-40 if i am correct they had no fighter and so was going to use that as and escort it was a B-17 with more machine gun.....Anyone heard the story of old "666"


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Jan 12, 2008)

There was also the French LeO 451 twin-engine bomber which had a magazine fed Hispano-Suiza 20mm cannon, swivel mounted in the dorsal position of the aircraft, controlled manually by the gunner and not by an electrical system. I believe it was semi-automatic, not fully auto.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 12, 2008)

It's a YB-40 look last one its the YB-40 cockipit 


WIKIPEDIA SAYS

"Initial work on the project began in September, 1942 with the XB-40 prototype, built by Lockheed's Vega subsidiary. The first order of 13 was made in October. A follow-up order for 12 more was made in January, 1943. The modifications were performed by Douglas Aircraft at their Tulsa, Oklahoma center, and the first aircraft were completed by the end of March, 1943.

The aircraft differed from the standard B-17 in that a second dorsal turret was installed in the former radio compartment (between the top turret and the waist guns); the single 0.50-calibre (12.7 mm) machine gun at each waist station was replaced by a pair of 0.50-calibre (12.7 mm) guns, with a mount for each pair of these being very much like the tail gun setup in general appearance; and the bombardier's equipment was replaced with two 0.50-calibre (12.7 mm) machine guns in a "chin" turret. The existing "cheek" machine guns, initially removed from the configuration, were restored in England to provide a total of sixteen and the bomb bay itself was converted to a magazine. However a significant portion of the 4,000 pound weight increase came from armor plates installed to protect crew positions. An indication of the burden this placed on the YB-40 is that while the B-17F on which it was based was rated to climb to 20,000 feet in 25 minutes, the YB-40 was rated at 48 minutes.


[edit] Operational history
The YB-40's mission was to provide a heavily-gunned escort capable of accompanying the bombers all the way to the target and back. Overall the concept proved a failure because the YB-40 could not keep up with standard B-17Fs, particularly after they had dropped bombs. Of the initial order of 13, one was damaged in a forced landing on the Isle of Lewis en route to England, and the remaining 12 were assigned to the 92nd Bomb Group (H) and designated the 327th Bomb Squadron.

Between May 29 and August 16, 1943, the YB-40 flew 14 of the 19 combat missions scheduled by the 8th Air Force, although on the mission of June 26 all the YB-40s scheduled were unable to complete assembly and returned to base. Altogether of the 59 aircraft despatched, 48 sorties were credited. 5 kills and 2 probables (likely kills) were claimed on the 13 missions flown, and one YB-40 was lost, shot down by flak on the June 22 mission to Hüls, Germany. Tactics were revised on the final five missions by placing a pair of YB-40's in the lead element of the strike to protect the mission commander.

One YB-40 of the second order, reflecting modifications requested during combat trials to lighten the aircraft, joined the 327th in October, 1943, but by then B-17G models were beginning to appear and the final YB-40 was not flown in combat. All the deployed YB-40s were returned to the United States and converted to training aircraft, as were 11 aircraft of the second order.

One of the most unusual stories involving the use of a YB-40 was to counter the efforts of an Italian pilot, Guido Rossi, who had begun to offensively fly a captured P-38 Lightning fighter that had been forced to land, low on fuel, over Sardinia in the spring of 1943. Rossi's scheme was to use the P-38 as a supposedly "friendly" aircraft, that he would use to first draw in, then shoot down, crippled American aircraft. Lt. Harold Fisher, a USAAF bomber pilot who had been victimized by Rossi's still-American-marked P-38, was able to get the use of a YB-40 to try and turn the tables on the Italian pilot. On August 31, 1943, Rossi appeared in the sky in the general vicinity of the YB-40, and Fisher drew Rossi in with radio conversation-eventually the Italian pilot became furious at one of Fisher's statements, and the attacking P-38 fell apart from the hail of bullets from the YB-40's guns. This event was documented in the pages of aviation author Martin Caidin's book "Flying Forts", about B-17 action in WW II Europe.[1],[2]

Despite the failure of the project as an operational aircraft, it led directly to modifications conspicuous on the final production variant of the B-17, the B-17G: the chin turret, off-set waist gun positions, and a lightweight tail position."


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 12, 2008)

B-17engineer said:


> One of the most unusual stories involving the use of a YB-40 was to counter the efforts of an Italian pilot, Guido Rossi, who had begun to offensively fly a captured P-38 Lightning fighter that had been forced to land, low on fuel, over Sardinia in the spring of 1943. Rossi's scheme was to use the P-38 as a supposedly "friendly" aircraft, that he would use to first draw in, then shoot down, crippled American aircraft. Lt. Harold Fisher, a USAAF bomber pilot who had been victimized by Rossi's still-American-marked P-38, was able to get the use of a YB-40 to try and turn the tables on the Italian pilot. On August 31, 1943, Rossi appeared in the sky in the general vicinity of the YB-40, and Fisher drew Rossi in with radio conversation-eventually the Italian pilot became furious at one of Fisher's statements, and the attacking P-38 fell apart from the hail of bullets from the YB-40's guns. This event was documented in the pages of aviation author Martin Caidin's book "Flying Forts", about B-17 action in WW II Europe."



Total BS - that's why you shouldn't rely on Wiki too much and take anything written by Martin Cadin with a grain of salt.

The YB-40 was used by the 327th BS, 92nd BG - they were no where near Italy and neither was the YB-40. The last YB-40 mission was July 29, 1943.

YB-40

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 12, 2008)

O okay..........but i was just trying to say that the plane with extra machine guns was the YB-40..............At the time there weren't planes so the Yb was designed........


----------



## Graeme (Jan 12, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Total BS - that's why you shouldn't rely on Wiki too much and take anything written by Martin Cadin with a grain of salt.



Martin Caidin? Why, what's he done?

It's a growing list since joining this forum. William Green, Bill Gunston, Eric Brown and Dr Alfred Price are just a few I have read that are regarded as 'doubtful' here. The bookshelf is shrinking. Any others?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 12, 2008)

Graeme said:


> Martin Caidin? Why, what's he done?


While he was an entertaining writer, he tends to exaggerate and sometimes flat out BSs' - like the Rossi story.

When he wrote the "Fork Tailed Devil" (even the title was a myth) he pissed off a lot of people - especially Ben Kelsey, the P-38 pilot who broke the coast to coast record and then crashed the prototype on landing. Although he published a revision to the book where he apologized, the damage was already done...


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 12, 2008)

Yea.............I wasn't saying it to like talk bout its mission history just saying VG-33 that the plane he was mentioning was the YB-40


----------



## Downwind.Maddl-Land (Jan 13, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> The B-29, as usual, is in a class of it`s own in this regard as well. IIRC later versions carried a 20mm cannon in the tail, and the guns being remote controlled, could be operated in concert, playing a leathal tune..



Have to agree with Kurfürst's initial statement and with Adler's later one - no escort, no worthwhile mission.

However, it was the EARLIER B-29s that had the 20mm, Kurfürst. They were removed (and not installed on the production line) at quite an early stage as:

The trajectories of the 20mm and .5s were very different and didn't harmonise over any 'useful' range.

The 20mm had only a 60 round drum magazine, which got expended rapidly.

However, it usually jammed after a few rounds anyway so the 60 never got expended and it was so much dead weight for a lot of the trip​
What I never understood was why the 20mm wasn't replaced by a 3rd .5 which would have resolved all of the above, while adding useful firepower. Some B-29Bs were equipped with 3 x .5s in the tail so the engineering 'fix' was available; never understood why the mod was never transferred to the main production run.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 13, 2008)

Downwind.Maddl-Land said:


> Some B-29Bs were equipped with 3 x .5s in the tail so the engineering 'fix' was available; never understood why the mod was never transferred to the main production run.


My guess would be because of other more pressing issues with the bomber at the factory it might of been thought that mod could be done at a pre-delivery "mod center" or in the field as the guns were easily removed and replaced by ground crews anyway.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 13, 2008)

i'm agree with this best defence for a bomber is a speed, b29 have good "traditional" defence but also good speed.
i think thar ar 234 this hard to shot down it is fast for common fighter him times


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 13, 2008)

Just looking at the He-177 looked like such a big bomber for a 5/6 man crew......Had a great Fire control system from i read...........She sould've be such a great bomber......


----------



## Downwind.Maddl-Land (Jan 13, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> My guess would be because of other more pressing issues with the bomber at the factory it might of been thought that mod could be done at a pre-delivery "mod center" or in the field as the guns were easily removed and replaced by ground crews anyway.



I should have perhaps said:

"....main production run _or at the main mod centres prior to delivery to operational units"_ ie make the 3rd x .5 a standard fit​


----------



## Trautloft (Jan 13, 2008)

To the very first post : generally,bombers met in Europe a heavy resistance (if they met any in the last years) and in Japan rarely. But a Randy or Nick was not less armed as any of the german planes


----------



## JoeB (Jan 13, 2008)

Graeme said:


> Martin Caidin? Why, what's he done?
> 
> It's a growing list since joining this forum. William Green, Bill Gunston, Eric Brown and Dr Alfred Price are just a few I have read that are regarded as 'doubtful' here. The bookshelf is shrinking. Any others?


The others don't compare with Caidin. You put up a picture of 'Zero' (with introduction by Japanese Navy ace Saburo Sakai) but his much more infamous book was "Samurai" supposedly by Sakai. But it turned out Caidin wrote the book based on notes by a translator from interviews with Sakai, Caidin didn't even meet him. A lot of errors in that book have been pointed out since; not just perception errors by Sakai about the success of his unit (claimed 5 really downed 2, that sort of thing, which is par for the course); but stuff that's wrong from the Japanese side. Maybe Sakai misrecalled some of it, but again the book was apparently very lightly researched to fix any of that. The lack of confidence that any given statement in there really came from Sakai makes it an almost useless book IMO.

As FBJ said, the Italian P-38/YB-40 story is notorious Caidin tall tale with only the very loosest basis in fact (which doesn't relate to YB-40's).

Eric Brown: his best known book, "Duels in the Sky", is IMO very readable and entertaining, and somewhat informative too. As most know a lot of the book is Brown's comparatives of various WWII types that really met or didn't, a lot of the same stuff that's debated on forums such as this one. I have no problem with the book itself, just quotations from it that treat it as some kind of holy scripture. The comparisons are with benefit of Brown's test pilot experience, but not necessarily with benefit of actual combat results which Brown wasn't apparently as expert about.

Green: prolific writer about WWII types a long time ago; later writers in part inspired by people like him have found new and better info in many cases.

Gunston: more a modern a/c writer AFAIK, not WWII; very prolific, and often writing speculating about stuff for which better info eventually comes out.

Alfred Price: I don't know the problem is supposed to be with Price, nobody is perfect but IMO he's the highest quality writer you mentioned. Maybe people criticize Price for other things but cases I recall have been about his Osprey series book on Spitfire V aces cataloging the failure of Spit V's v Zeroes over Darwin 1943, and actually quite light Japanese losses, combat by combat. That topic strikes a funny nerve in some people, for whatever reason. But Price's source there is pretty clearly the Japanese official history (agrees with it anyway). He's not making it up or getting it from me or something  . And as has been covered ad nauseum, all the best Western books about Pac War air combat of last 20+ years use that series, Senshi Sosho as a major source. There's no logical reason to believe it 'understated losses' more in combats with Spitfires (and Hurricanes mysteriously as well) than in combats with F4F's, P-40's etc. and those are the comparisons made. Plus it's never been shown grossly inconsistent with any other known Japanese sources at all (eg. US 'ultra' intercepts during the war about J air losses in particular combats, interviews w/ Japanese officers post war, many first hand books written in Japan, etc). 

Price is a professional author (retired RAF IIRC) who writes a lot of books, not a part timer who gives long term heart and soul to one topic, and those are different approaches. But in general he's among the better of prolific pro's IMO. His "History of US Electronic Warfare" 3 vols. is among the best military topic books around, because he understands that difficult topic and explains it very well.

Joe


----------



## JoeB (Jan 13, 2008)

Downwind.Maddl-Land said:


> What I never understood was why the 20mm wasn't replaced by a 3rd .5 which would have resolved all of the above, while adding useful firepower. Some B-29Bs were equipped with 3 x .5s in the tail so the engineering 'fix' was available; never understood why the mod was never transferred to the main production run.


I believe that was a common retrofit in WWII, third .50. In any case by the time of the Korean War that was the standard fit. And later in that war some B-29's received faster firing M3 .50's in the tail only, 3 each.

Joe


----------



## JoeB (Jan 13, 2008)

deleted duplicate


----------



## Udet (Jan 13, 2008)

To this i´d add there is a thread where we discussed bomber´s defensive armament...

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/bombers-defensive-armament-misconceived-idea-504.html


----------



## Downwind.Maddl-Land (Jan 13, 2008)

JoeB said:


> I believe that was a common retrofit in WWII, third .50. In any case by the time of the Korean War that was the standard fit. And later in that war some B-29's received faster firing M3 .50's in the tail only, 3 each.



That's what I would have expected, but have never seen or read any evidence of same; never actually seen a photo of a 3 x .5 tail on a B-29B either for that matter! Have you any photos or references, Joe?


----------



## JoeB (Jan 13, 2008)

Downwind.Maddl-Land said:


> That's what I would have expected, but have never seen or read any evidence of same; never actually seen a photo of a 3 x .5 tail on a B-29B either for that matter! Have you any photos or references,


For Korea there are many, examples photo's would be on pages 12 and 13 of Dorr "B-29 Superfortress Units of the Korean War" or the last photo in Futrell's "USAF in the Korea (official history), sorry no scanner handy. Triple M3's retrofitted later in that war is mentioned in Far East Air Force AF Bomber Command documents from late 1952.

For WWII, I'm pretty sure I've read that it was also done, but couldn't prove it. The initial standard move was just to remove the 20mm, that's pretty clear. Futtrell in "Blankets of Fire" p. 137 notes that not a lot of Japanese fighters attacked from the rear in the intial daylight phase over Japan, and the Japanese night fighter threat was never that severe, relatively, and weight reduction was an ongoing goal. By the time the triple M3's for triple M2's retrofit was being discussed the main threat was MiG-15 nightfighters, and the tail gunner was far the most likely to get a good shot at those if anyone was; *only* the tail guns were to be replaced by the faster firing M3's.

Joe


----------



## Graeme (Jan 14, 2008)

Thanks for your in-depth author appraisal JoeB. Very informative...and a little depressing, as I look around at my bookshelves groaning under the weight of books/magazines from the seventies! Time marches on.


----------



## seesul (Jan 14, 2008)

maybe off topic, but also some B-17 were modified by 20 mm cannon in tail...
one off them crashed few miles away from here, ser. No. 42-31885...
we were pretty kicked out when a friend of mine found 20 mm shells at the crash place... the picture of the rests of this machine shows the same...

more at 20 mm cannon aboard a B-17G???


----------



## seesul (Jan 14, 2008)

seesul said:


> maybe off topic, but also some B-17 were modified by 20 mm cannon in tail...
> one off them crashed few miles away from here, ser. No. 42-31885...
> we were pretty kicked out when a friend of mine found 20 mm shells at the crash place... the picture of the rests of this machine shows the same...
> 
> more at 20 mm cannon aboard a B-17G???



Damn, 4got 2 attach the mentioned picture, I´m getting


----------



## seesul (Jan 14, 2008)

...and now I realized that on the other forum I´ve asked if someone is able to identify where the 0.50 twins come from...Chin or tail? If from tail, it would mean that this cannon had to be somewhere else, maybe in the radio room 
So what do you think, guys?
Hope I haven´t posted this picture and question on this forum before, if so, I apologize


----------



## renrich (Jan 15, 2008)

The 50 cal mgs carried in the tail of the various bomber had more range and could hit more easily at long range than the 20 mms in use at that time. The Betty carried a 20 mm stinger in the tail.


----------



## renrich (Jan 15, 2008)

Eric Brown, though I am sure was an experienced pilot, was one of the most biased authors I have read.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 9, 2017)

Operations researchers found that heavy defensive armament on bombers increased casualties in a heavily defended operated: the increase in weight and drag slowed bombers, so more were needed, and the large crews meant that the number of casualties with each aircraft lost increased.

While this was, no doubt true, I think it overlooks a different problem: before smart weapons, massed bomber raids were necessary for the sort of suppression a couple of aircraft with smart bombs could do today: even if, as I've seen written, a Mosquito could deliver the same mass of bombs on Berlin as could a B-17, a 500-Mosquito formation would not be able to use the Mossie's superior speed or maneuverability to escape. The USAAF also found, quite the hard way, that bomber defensive armament, no matter how massive, could not reduce aircraft losses to a sustainable level. I have no real way of reliably analyzing the data, but I suspect that, had the USAAF removed the waist gunners and their associated weapons and ammunition, the numbers of bombers lost would not have changed, as each bomber could have carried 500 lb or so more bombs and, with the big holes that waist gunners shot through closed up, been slightly faster.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 9, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> even if, as I've seen written, a Mosquito could deliver the same mass of bombs on Berlin as could a B-17, a 500-Mosquito formation would not be able to use the Mossie's superior speed or maneuverability to escape.



That sounds like you expect a formation of 500 Mosquito bombers to operate in roughly the same as 500 B-17s. That is, in formation, bombing as a unit.

Which is unlikely, since the B-17 formations were mainly about creating zones of mutual defensive fire.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 9, 2017)

wuzak said:


> That sounds like you expect a formation of 500 Mosquito bombers to operate in roughly the same as 500 B-17s. That is, in formation, bombing as a unit.
> 
> Which is unlikely, since the B-17 formations were mainly about creating zones of mutual defensive fire.



I don't doubt that you're correct, but what would be the best way to organize a daylight raid to drop a thousand tons or so of bombs on someplace in Germany?


----------



## wuzak (Jan 9, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> I don't doubt that you're correct, but what would be the best way to organize a daylight raid to drop a thousand tons or so of bombs on someplace in Germany?



That would be highly dependent on the target.

If it is a city, then I doubt the Mosquito could do it.

If it is a factory, or series of factory buildings, a low level raid could be quite successful, and probably not require as many bombers. But that depends on the target being within range at Sea Level, as the best attack would be to remain low the whole trip, thereby maximising the chances of catching the defences by surprise.

It would be difficulty to maintain that for long, so for medium or high altitude attacks I would think Mosquitoes would head to target in smaller groups, bomb individually (theoretically achieving higher accuracy) and then heading home. A much higher cruise speed would be used than possible by B-17s, particularly in the target area.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 9, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> even if, as I've seen written, a Mosquito could deliver the same mass of bombs on Berlin as could a B-17,



This belongs over in one of the myth threads. 
B-17s _averaged _4000lbs of bombs in raids on Berlin (actually they did better than that) because while they could routinely carry 5000lb of HE bombs, when carrying the less dense (or bulkier) incendiary bomb loads the incendiary load weighed a lot closer to 3000lbs, giving the 4,000lb average. 
Mosquitos (at least the majority of them) could only carry 4,000lbs when using the 4000lb cookie. When using normal 500lb bombs they could carry four inside and sometimes two outside. 2000lbs or 3000lb bomb loads. 

I would also note that Mosquito carrying 500 Imp gallons of gas and a 4000lb cookie is over max gross weight and that doesn't count crew weight.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 9, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Mosquitos (at least the majority of them) could only carry 4,000lbs when using the 4000lb cookie.



Not true.

They could also carry the 4,000lb Medium Capacity bomb.



Shortround6 said:


> I would also note that Mosquito carrying 500 Imp gallons of gas and a 4000lb cookie is over max gross weight and that doesn't count crew weight.



And, yet, thy still managed to do that, night after night.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 9, 2017)

There are other limitations for the Mosquito.

They could carry 2 x 1,000lb MC or GP bombs, or Target Indicators, but only with the bulged bomb bay.

Earlier tests had a 1,000lb GP bomb and 2 x 500lb MC bombs in the rear fuselage, but this was not used operationally. The 1,000lb GP bomb was smaller in diameter than the 1,000lb MC bomb, but only had a charge to weight ratio of 25-30%. So, basically a similar amount of explosive as 2 x 500lb bombs.

The 1,900lb GP bomb would not fit without the bulged bomb doors, and was rarely used anyway. No 2,000lb Medium Capacity bomb was developed by the British.

The American 1,000lb and 2,000lb GP bombs could not fit on account of their large tail assemblies.

So the success of the Mosquito in a strategic bombing role would be very much limited to the target and the type of attack required. Targets requiring a large amount of bombs in an area, such as the city bombing attacks, would require large numbers of Mosquitoes. More precise attacks on smaller targets they could do.


----------



## stona (Jan 10, 2017)

A successful area raid (or area type raid as the Americans preferred to euphemistically call them) requires a concentration of bombing in space_ and time _to be most effective. Bomber Command concentrations meant that an aircraft bombed every 4-10 seconds for the duration of the raid. At Dresden 240+ aircraft of 5 Group dropped 881.1 tons of bombs (43% incendiary by weight) between 22.13 and 22.28 at a rate of about one load every 3.7 seconds. That's near enough 1 ton of bombs being delivered every second. It was an outstanding performance, and is why this first wave of the raid was a destructive as it was. It is difficult to see how an aircraft like the Mosquito (or B-17 for that matter) could achieve anything approaching this weight and concentration of bombs, even if available in large numbers.
I don't know how concentrated the US bombing was in these terms, but given the large formations and their system of toggling on the leader it must have been comparable in time if not total weight.
Having many small groups of aircraft bombing over a protracted period is unlikely to create the desired effect, that is destruction by fire, creation of a fire storm. It's why Bomber Command and the 8th Air Force, when the latter engaged on this type of raid, carried a substantial incendiary load.
The smaller Luftwaffe bombers shuttle bombed British cities over long winter nights, flying two or even three sorties and the British quickly realised that this reduced the effectiveness of the total weight of ordnance dropped and particularly that of the high percentage of incendiaries dropped.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 10, 2017)

wuzak said:


> Not true.
> 
> They could also carry the 4,000lb Medium Capacity bomb.


 true but they only it carried about 141 times ?, 
the 4000lb High capacity bomb or light case or...... seems to have gone through several marks but some sources claim 6000-7000 were carried by mosquitoes? making the 4000lb medium capacity bomb rather a side note. 





4000lb MC being the bomb on the right in the front row. 

the 4000lb MK II bomb _seems_ to have been a G.P. bomb that weighed an actual 3587lbs with 1070lbs of filler according to the bomb specification booklet recently posted.
The 1900lb GP bomb (2nd bomb-2nd row) had 470lbs of filler.
The 1st bomb-2nd row may be miss identified. There is no 2000lb MC bomb in the listings (listings may be wrong?) but the 2000lb AP bomb seems to be the right diameter and length. Since the 2000lb AP bomb only carried 166lbs of explosive there was no reason to carry it _unless _a major warship (Battleship) was the target. 





> And, yet, thy still managed to do that, night after night.


Very true but trying for exotic loading's like a 4000lb internal and pair of 500lbs under wing or 4000lb bomb internal and under wing drop tanks puts the plane well into overload.
But then many, many B-17s (and other bombers ) operated well into overload conditions also. Questions are what restrictions are imposed when overloaded.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 10, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> true but they only it carried about 141 times ?,
> the 4000lb High capacity bomb or light case or...... seems to have gone through several marks but some sources claim 6000-7000 were carried by mosquitoes? making the 4000lb medium capacity bomb rather a side note.



True.

Bomber Command dropped at least 4 times the number of the HC as they did the MC.

I can't recall if the 4,000lb MC was used against oil facilities or not, and I am away from my files. Definitely the HC was.

Possibly it was also used against canals.

There was a 4,000lb MC bomb with ~57% charge to weight ratio
4000lb Medium Capcity Bomb

And a 4,000lb GP bomb with a ~30% charge to weight ratio
4000lb General Purpose Bomb




Shortround6 said:


> The 1st bomb-2nd row may be miss identified. There is no 2000lb MC bomb in the listings (listings may be wrong?) but the 2000lb AP bomb seems to be the right diameter and length. Since the 2000lb AP bomb only carried 166lbs of explosive there was no reason to carry it _unless _a major warship (Battleship) was the target.



Agreed. It very much looks like the 2,000lb AP bomb.




Shortround6 said:


> Very true but trying for exotic loading's like a 4000lb internal and pair of 500lbs under wing or 4000lb bomb internal and under wing drop tanks puts the plane well into overload.



That depends on the model. The B.Mk IV was very much overloaded with the 5,000lb bomb load, or 4,000lb bomb load with drop tanks, but the B.Mk XVI was around its maximum loading.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 10, 2017)

There are many aspects to a bombers defence. Its speed, armament (in number, caliber and coverage) agility and defensive measures. At one point on a triangle is the mosquito at another the B29 and another the fighter versions of the B19 and B24 which only bombed germany with shell casings. It all depends when and where you want to drop the bombs and how many bombs you want drop and then how much do you want to spend. I would say the B29 or Mosquito ad that rules out the planes that really did the hard work so for me it is the B24/Lancaster you cannot compare day/night defense.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 10, 2017)

Anyone know why the Avro carrier wasn't used by the Mossie?


----------



## wuzak (Jan 10, 2017)

Milosh said:


> Anyone know why the Avro carrier wasn't used by the Mossie?



I personally haven't been able to find any evidence of its existence.

I can't recall right now if the standard bomb carriers used in the Mosquito were Handley Page or Avro type Universal Bomb Carriers, These were designed to carry various bombs up to the rated loading, which was 500lb in case of the Mosquito. To carry 4 bombs 4 of these would be required.

One Mosquito was modified with a modified bomb beam from a Wellington. This operated in a similar way to the bomb supports in the B-17, in that the bombs were slung from the side of the structure. In the case of teh Wellington there was one beam that could take bombs on either side, and one that took them on only one side.

For the Mosquito, the beam used hung bombs from both sides. Originally the idea was to expand the capacity of the Mosquito for marking by increasing the number of Target Indicators it could carry, and better utilising the extra space afforded by the bulged bomb bay. With the modified Wellington bomb beam the Mosquito could carry 8 x 250lb TIs instead of 4. 

The Air Ministry were also interested in using the modified beam with 8 x 500lb MC bombs (there were no 500lb TIs). de Havilland noted that would move the CoG rearwards to an unacceptable degree (not clear whether this was for a IV/XX or XVI or both). The AM suggested 4 x 500lb and 4 x 250lb, but the file I have shows no response to the enquiry.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 10, 2017)

Milosh said:


> Anyone know why the Avro carrier wasn't used by the Mossie?



And it may be that the Air Ministry/RAF were satisfied with 1 x 4,000lb HC bomb.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 11, 2017)

Regarding the bomb carriers, I found these bits in my files:

The carriers used in the FB.VI (and B.IV) were Handley Page types:





Avro carriers were used for the twin adaptors for 2 x 1,000lb bombs.





Discussion for increasing the load of the Mosquito with bulged bomb bay included a 6 store carrier.





Unfortunately that was on of the last pages in the file.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 11, 2017)

wuzak said:


> The Air Ministry were also interested in using the modified beam with 8 x 500lb MC bombs (there were no 500lb TIs). de Havilland noted that would move the CoG rearwards to an unacceptable degree (not clear whether this was for a IV/XX or XVI or both). The AM suggested 4 x 500lb and 4 x 250lb, but the file I have shows no response to the enquiry.



Having re-read the file, it is clear that the aircraft for which the Wellington bomb beam was destined was a B.XVI.

In addition to the CoG issue, de Havillands felt that the all up weight would be over limit as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 11, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> the 4000lb MK II bomb _seems_ to have been a G.P. bomb that weighed an actual 3587lbs with 1070lbs of filler according to the bomb specification booklet recently posted.













From British Explosive Ordnance, NAVORD OP 1665. 

This file is located somewhere on this site.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jan 11, 2017)

The 4,000 lb MC bomb was rushed through in 1943 to replace the 4,000 lb GP bomb which Bomber Command considered 'suspect'.
The initial concept was to use it to attack substantially constructed industrial complexes and ship yards from low level. Trials showed that it had good penetrative properties even when dropped from as low as 100 ft, creating a crater 14 ft deep and 64 ft wide. There may have been some failings in inter departmental communications as, by the time the bomb became available, Harris made it clear that he had no intention of risking his 'heavies' on low level attacks of this nature and in any event he was enjoying considerable success from high level since the advent of the PFF, various aids and loads comprising the large HC bombs and incendiaries. As a result there were no specific targets for the new 4,000 lb MC bomb and it was relegated to use for general bombardment from high level.
Bomber Command dropped 21,000 of these bombs, 13,000 in 1944. Some were dropped by main force squadrons in area raids but it was the Mosquitoes which could deliver them rather more clinically. For example the famous raids by aircraft of Nos. 128,571 and 692 Squadrons on 1st January 1945, in which they hurled their bombs into the mouths of vital road and rail tunnels in the Mosel/Rhine valleys near Koblenz made successful use of the 4,000 lb MC bomb.
Most sources for the Mosquito refer to all 4,000 lb bombs dropped as 'cookies' and this is obviously wrong as they certainly carried the MC version operationally. What percentages of 4,000 lb HC and MC bombs they carried I have not found....yet. Where did the 141 number come from?

At a slight tangent, an illustration of the different loads carried for different targets by the Lancasters of a typical main force squadron, in this case No. 57 Squadron, on just four days in early 1945.

4/5 Jan Attack on canal viaduct at Landbergen 1 x 4,000 lb HC, 16 x 500 lb MC
5/6 Jan Oil targets 13 x 1,000 lb MC
6/7 Jan Mining 6 x A Mark I-IV Mines
7/8 Jan Area Attack, Munich 1 x 4,000 lb HC, 10 x Incendiary Clusters

The versatility allowed by that wide open bomb bay is a factor often overlooked in discussions of WW2 bombers.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 11, 2017)

stona said:


> Most sources for the Mosquito refer to all 4,000 lb bombs dropped as 'cookies' and this is obviously wrong as they certainly carried the MC version operationally. What percentages of 4,000 lb HC and MC bombs they carried I have not found....yet. Where did the 141 number come from?



That number comes from Sharp and Bowyer, _Mosquito_.

They also list 776 4,000lb HC, 7,469 4,000lb M2 (Mk II HC I presume), 12 1,000lb MC and 2 1,000lb GP. (I believe the 1,000lb bombs were all carried on the same raid - to the Gestapo headquarters in Oslo - by 627 squadron). Some 31,000+ 500lb MC and 11,000+ 500lb GP bombs were also used.

347 1,000lb TI and 16,652 250lb TIs were dropped, while 8 4,000lb Incendiary bombs and nearly 19,000 4lb incendiaries (in small bomb containers) were used by Mosquitoes.


----------



## stona (Jan 11, 2017)

Referring to bomber armament I just read an interesting factor, related to the generally greater weight of larger guns, when fitted to the Lancaster.
The Lancaster VII had the standard .303 armed FN50 mid upper turret replaced with an electrically operated Martin 250 series turret equipped with .5 calibre machine guns. With its much greater weight, in no small part due to the much heavier ammunition, _the American turret had to be fitted six feed further forward in order to keep the aircraft withing CoG limits, _and its a big, heavy, aircraft.

The absence of any under armament on the vast majority of Lancasters and Halifaxes is often quoted as a serious failing by Bomber Command to protect its crews. In fact, in July 1943, a requirement for an 'Under Defence Gun' was re-instated. This would have been the FN64 ventral turret, which was quite a sleek design. Only the gun mounting protruded into the airflow, the gunner remained entirely in the aircraft, sighting through a prismatic sight. The guns could depress 80 degrees and traverse 100 degrees. The view through the sight was only 20 degrees and when the bomber made evasive manoeuvres it was found to be virtually useless.
This is an important point. The aircraft of day light operating US formations flew in mutually supporting formation. Their gunners were afforded a stable gun platform from which to fire. British bombers operating at night may have been in a stream, but in defensive terms it was everyman for himself. The primary defence was the stealth afforded by darkness and the primary evasive action was a corkscrew. No sane British bomber pilot would fly straight and level once a night fighter was seen manoeuvering to attack and allow his gunners to fight it out.

It was the decision in late 1943 to equip main force aircraft with H2S that did for the ventral gun position. H2S left no space for a 'belly' gun, replacing the Preston Green mounting for such a weapon in the Halifax and similar arrangements in some Lancasters.

Attached an FN64 turret outside the aircraft to give a better idea of how it worked.






Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jan 11, 2017)

wuzak said:


> while 8 4,000lb Incendiary bombs .... were used by Mosquitoes.



These are a bit of an anomaly, even though interesting. It was actually a 4,000lb HC bomb case filled with 'incendiary substance'. It weighed in at 2,700 lb. The same case had been used to make the 'Pink Pansy' target marker in 1942 and this may be the origin for the idea of a really big incendiary bomb. It was never fully developed and those dropped by the Mosquitoes (I know four were dropped by No 139 Squadron on Berlin on the night of 12/13 April 1945) were used at a time when just about anything to hand was being dropped on Germany's devastated cities.
Edit:
I'm not sure what he means by 'Mk2', but you may be correct. The problem is that the Mk I was introduced in early 1941, and by October 1942 we were already on the Mk IV.
Maybe he has just lumped everything that had the dome nosed Mk II onwards shape as a 'Mk 2' as they were obviously, visibly, different from the Mk I.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 11, 2017)

Thanks to both of you for information on the bombs.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jan 11, 2017)

Further to wuzak's post, you will notice the relatively low number of 1,000 lb TIs dropped by Mosquitoes. They were rarely used by the 8 Group (PFF) Mosquitoes but were more often used by 5 Group's own pathfinders, particularly for the low level marking technique they developed.
The 250 lb TI ejected 60 coloured 9" candles, the 1,000 lb version 200 similar candles. Both worked in a similar way, a 3 oz. bursting or ejection charge blew the candles out of the rear of the bomb case at the desired time. For 'ground marking' the fuse was set to eject the candles anywhere from 1,500 ft right down to the point of impact. From the more usual 1,500 ft the candles would spread over an area between 60 and 100 yards on the ground. For 'sky marking' the candles would be ejected at 9,000 ft or more, depending on the cloud ceiling. This sort of sky marking by TIs should not be confused with other sky marking techniques. The British developed more than 40 different pyrotechnic devices for various forms of marking.

The very first bomb dropped on Dresden was a 1,000 lb Target Indicator, from one of 5 Group's pathfinder Mosquitoes, flown by the wonderfully named Flt.Lt. William Topper and navigated by Flt.Lt. Davies, of No. 627 Squadron. He and the other pathfinder Mosquitoes dropped the TIs from around 2,000 ft, they were set to eject their pyrotechnics at 700 ft. All eight Mosquitoes marked within 100 yards of the aiming point (the Ostragehege stadium). We all know what came next.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Juha2 (Jan 11, 2017)

wuzak said:


> That number comes from Sharp and Bowyer, _Mosquito_.
> 
> They also list 776 4,000lb HC, 7,469 4,000lb M2 (Mk II HC I presume), 12 1,000lb MC and 2 1,000lb GP. (I believe the 1,000lb bombs were all carried on the same raid - to the Gestapo headquarters in Oslo - by 627 squadron). Some 31,000+ 500lb MC and 11,000+ 500lb GP bombs were also used.
> 
> 347 1,000lb TI and 16,652 250lb TIs were dropped, while 8 4,000lb Incendiary bombs and nearly 19,000 4lb incendiaries (in small bomb containers) were used by Mosquitoes.



The info (the number of different bomb types dropped from Mossie bombers during the WWII) is also in Simons' Mosquito: The Original Multi-Role Aircraft (1990)


----------



## wuzak (Jan 11, 2017)

stona said:


> Further to wuzak's post, you will notice the relatively low number of 1,000 lb TIs dropped by Mosquitoes. They were rarely used by the 8 Group (PFF) Mosquitoes but were more often used by 5 Group's own pathfinders, particularly for the low level marking technique they developed.



I believe 627 Squadron had single 1,000lb bomb adaptors built for their Mosquitoes and had started working on a twin adaptor on their own accord.

I will check tonight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 13, 2017)

I have read that many Bomber Command pilots forbade the gunners from firing but insisted they simply kept close watch and gave him the corkscrew left or right command.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 13, 2017)

wuzak said:


> I believe 627 Squadron had single 1,000lb bomb adaptors built for their Mosquitoes and had started working on a twin adaptor on their own accord.
> 
> I will check tonight.



A quick search couldn't find anything naming 627 Squadron as the creator of a twin adaptor, but work was certainly carried out at their base at RAF Oakington.


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 13, 2017)

Graeme said:


> Martin Caidin? Why, what's he done?
> 
> It's a growing list since joining this forum. William Green, Bill Gunston, Eric Brown and Dr Alfred Price are just a few I have read that are regarded as 'doubtful' here. The bookshelf is shrinking. Any others?


I think a better question would be what authors, if any, are considered reliable sources? Marten Caidin was a very readable author but was I believe accused of a great deal of plagiarism and not a small amount of creative license without identifying clearly where he was being creative. So far 2/3 of my library has become suspect since joining this forum.


----------



## stona (Jan 14, 2017)

fastmongrel said:


> I have read that many Bomber Command pilots forbade the gunners from firing but insisted they simply kept close watch and gave him the corkscrew left or right command.



The policy varied from Group to Group as well as among individual crews. 5 Group adopted a very aggressive policy, firing on any suspicious aircraft. Investigation showed that this did not reduce their losses and led to a significant increase in 'friendly fire' incidents.
Many crews believed that the best defence against a fighter, once seen, was to instigate a corkscrew as quickly as possible. This often had one of two outcomes. Either the night fighter lost the bomber in the darkness or, finding the manoeuvering bomber a difficult target, set off in search of another target with a less vigilant crew.
I have read a couple of accounts in which an experienced night fighter crew attempted to follow a corkscrewing bomber, but both conceded that it made an almost impossible target.
Many gunners said that they saw their role primarily as look outs, hoping to see any approaching night fighter before it could launch an attack and in time to warn their pilot so that he could instigate the evasive action. This is what made 'schrage musik' so dangerous, the fighter, in the hands of a skillful pilot, could make an unseen approach.
Some gunners have claimed that a quick and not necessarily well aimed burst in the general direction of a fighter was enough to put it off, again sending it away to seek a less alert victim. On the other hand the bomber, by revealing its position, might attract the attention of any other nearby fighters
There were many different reactions to the sighting of a night fighter, but both Bomber Command and most crews agreed that the bomber's best defence was darkness, not its guns.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 14, 2017)

Robert Porter said:


> I think a better question would be what authors, if any, are considered reliable sources? Marten Caidin was a very readable author but was I believe accused of a great deal of plagiarism and not a small amount of creative license without identifying clearly where he was being creative. So far 2/3 of my library has become suspect since joining this forum.



A very real problem, especially with the history of WW2 is politics. I'm American, so I'm most cognizant of how it's taught in US schools. Leaving aside issues of war crimes -- the Germans and Soviets weren't alone in their commission -- there have been very few competent historians with the requisite knowledge of aviation and access to sources to write an accurate history. Memoirs are notoriously unreliable (one wonders if autobiography should even be shelved in non-fiction sections of the library), and memories are malleable and frangible (a trivial example: my father would tell you the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut happened during the Carter presidency. The bombings were in 1983; the Marines were sent to Beirut in 1982). 

There also seem to be some cases of deliberate error, as may have happened with some of the Morrison's writings about the WW2 in the Pacific.

So have at least three problems: writings by careless, incompetent, or deliberately inaccurate historians, deliberate political bias (Holocaust deniers), information buried in classified documents, and reliance on eyewitnesses. An interesting case may be B H Liddel-Hart's book (_The German Generals Talk _or _The Other Side of the Hill_), which was based on interviews with German generals, which showed, perhaps inadvertently, that no two people see the same thing). With air combat history, writers face the additional problems that few are both competent historians and highly knowledgeable about aircraft and aviation and that reliable sources are even less available for air combat than for naval or ground combat.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## varsity07840 (Jan 14, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> Operations researchers found that heavy defensive armament on bombers increased casualties in a heavily defended operated: the increase in weight and drag slowed bombers, so more were needed, and the large crews meant that the number of casualties with each aircraft lost increased.
> 
> While this was, no doubt true, I think it overlooks a different problem: before smart weapons, massed bomber raids were necessary for the sort of suppression a couple of aircraft with smart bombs could do today: even if, as I've seen written, a Mosquito could deliver the same mass of bombs on Berlin as could a B-17, a 500-Mosquito formation would not be able to use the Mossie's superior speed or maneuverability to escape. The USAAF also found, quite the hard way, that bomber defensive armament, no matter how massive, could not reduce aircraft losses to a sustainable level. I have no real way of reliably analyzing the data, but I suspect that, had the USAAF removed the waist gunners and their associated weapons and ammunition, the numbers of bombers lost would not have changed, as each bomber could have carried 500 lb or so more bombs and, with the big holes that waist gunners shot through closed up, been slightly faster.



The 5th Air Force removed waist guns from B-24s in late 1944. 8th AF removed ball turrets from B-24s around the dame time and several groups removed chin and ball turrets from B-17s.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 14, 2017)

varsity07840 said:


> The 5th Air Force removed waist guns from B-24s in late 1944. 8th AF removed ball turrets from B-24s around the dame time and several groups removed chin and ball turrets from B-17s.



I was not aware of that. I know some people have exaggerated the effectiveness of the defensive armament on American bombers and a consistent development of heavier and heavier weapons. I think that, during or shortly after the war, both the USAF and USN came to the conclusion that the best defensive armament for a bomber is escorting fighters. Of course, the B-36 had a different solution: for much of its service life, it operated above the altitude where interceptors could get a second pass (a college friend said his friend -- more likely his father, who was very active in the AAHS -- who was an F-86D pilot told him the Saber Dog could not make a second pass on a B-36 at its cruising altitude)


----------



## pbehn (Oct 4, 2017)

Was the B29s fire control system ever tested with a mass attack as in Europe 1944, how could a formation not concentrate on a few individuals and ignore others?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2017)

If there were any they of combat scenario testing, it would have been done stateside. My guess, after the experience in Europe, this was probably considered but then you have an aircraft that that had a bomb run I believe over 100 mph faster than the B-17 at higher altitudes. They wouldn't have been invincible under a "mass attack as in Europe 1944" but I think it would have been pretty obvious they would have been harder to shoot down.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## YF12A (Oct 5, 2017)

I remember specifically asking my neighbor about the armament on all the B-17's he flew. First off, he said the G was the best, as it was the one that had all the hard earned lessons put into it. Then I was told, " in his opinion ", taking out the waist gunners and all associated weight and equipment, covering the openings, and then adding more ammunition to the other guns was what he felt would have been the best choice. On the ball turret, he felt it was effective, but did tear up the undersides of a B-17 on a belly landing as ball turrets are a lot tougher in construction than just about everybody (present company excepted) thinks. and he then said he " was involved " in either the the development or modification of the kit to drop the turret when the landing gear would not work, I asked " if " and he told me he had " more than one " of those types of landings. Hope this helps, being here is jogging my memory of this great Gentleman, and a friend.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 5, 2017)

YF12A said:


> I remember specifically asking my neighbor about the armament on all the B-17's he flew. First off, he said the G was the best, as it was the one that had all the hard earned lessons put into it. Then I was told, " in his opinion ", taking out the waist gunners and all associated weight and equipment, covering the openings, and then adding more ammunition to the other guns was what he felt would have been the best choice. On the ball turret, he felt it was effective, but did tear up the undersides of a B-17 on a belly landing as ball turrets are a lot tougher in construction than just about everybody (present company excepted) thinks. and he then said he " was involved " in either the the development or modification of the kit to drop the turret when the landing gear would not work, I asked " if " and he told me he had " more than one " of those types of landings. Hope this helps, being here is jogging my memory of this great Gentleman, and a friend.



There was always two very powerful arguments about defence of bombers. One is the defensive field that it has to protect itself and the other is the price paid in performance and payload to get that defensive field. I believe that statistically the B 24 was safer than the B 17 because it was slightly faster and flew slightly higher, this is only known by statistics, pilots of B17s would swear by their aircraft because they were robust, took damage and were better in a crash landing.

Taken to the absurd, a thousand "bomber" raid using only the fighter versions of the B17 and B24 then losses would have been cut by less than half. Approximately half of losses were from ground fire but the fighter versions were slower and statistically this caused higher losses. Oh and they didn't drop bombs.


----------



## YF12A (Oct 5, 2017)

pbehn,

With all due tremendous respect from this newbie there are many kinds of " combat " statistics out there. Which bomber flew more of the toughest missions as an example. In what area? My neighbor did fly the B-24, but not in combat to my knowledge, and he told me when I asked which one was the plane that would bring he and his crew back, without a second of pause, he said the B-17. His opinion of the B-24 was that it was a very good plane, but harder to fly, keep in formation, and he did not ever want to think about a belly landing in one. This came from someone that was there from the start to the end and had no question of his thoughts. Interestingly, he always wanted to fly a B-17 with the P&W 1830 engines from a B-24! He never had any bad words for the R-1820's, told me more than once they brought him back missing cylinders but still turning the prop over making power,. It is just something he would bring up, I think he said the R-1830's ran smoother, but there were more parts as well. It still is an interesting question to me as well. IIRC, in Robert Johnson's P-47 book, one time a Bomber stream was getting hammered and the B-24's were flying UNDER the B-17's for protection, if I am correctly remembering this. If you ask me, I've been in both, and the 17 is my choice. But more importantly, your opinions are just as valid.

My Father worked on just about everything out there and liked most of them, but sooner or later, one of them would have an " interesting " problem. In my 60+ years of flying there is only one aircraft I was NEVER allowed to fly on, even in A/A service and that was the DC-10. My Father hated that plane with a passion,said it was a rushed build, why do you put an engine soo far up in the tail, makes maintenance a nightmare, just some of the problems he had to deal with.it and I didn't and couldn't disagree with him on it. 

Really starting to feel at home here, thanks to all, Fred.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 5, 2017)

YF12A said:


> pbehn,
> 
> With all due tremendous respect from this newbie there are many kinds of " combat " statistics out there. Which bomber flew more of the toughest missions as an example. In what area? My neighbor did fly the B-24, but not in combat to my knowledge, and he told me when I asked which one was the plane that would bring he and his crew back, without a second of pause, he said the B-17. His opinion of the B-24 was that it was a very good plane, but harder to fly, keep in formation, and he did not ever want to think about a belly landing in one. .


YF12 you are reflecting exactly a pilots view and it is valid. I am British and so my point of view is in many ways from the British experience. The HP Halifax was preferred by many crews because it was bigger, roomier and easier to get out of. However statistically the Lancaster beat it hands down. Not only were you more likely to be shot down in a Halifax but also on long distance raids the Halifax reduced bomb load and lower performance meant it was considerably worse than the Lancaster in terms of planes/crew lost per ton of bomb dropped. The pilot is only concerned with his mission and how it went, the commander of forces is concerned with bombs dropped and total crews lost.

As I said I am A Brit and I have read that the B 24 was statistically safer for the reasons I described, I would be happy to be corrected as long as it isn't on belly landings.


----------

