# Comparative Study of B-17 vs B-24



## WorkinStiff (Aug 4, 2005)

1944 AAF study: "It would be desirable to increase B-17 production and decrease that of the B-24 because the former airplane (B-17),is a much more effective combat weapon".....www.uk-us.org/stinet/warproduction.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## evangilder (Aug 4, 2005)

That document looks oddly familiar, I think I have a copy of it somewhere. There was more to it than what you mention:


> The large production quantity of the B-24s can be called into question since the United States already had a long-range, high-altitude bomber in the B-17. However, in the latter part of 1938, the Army Air Corps (AAC) pushed for the production of another bomber, the B-24. Some might argue that the reason for the production of the B-24 was that the AAC requested a plane with better range and better performance than the B-17, but this research shows that the B-24 did not outperform the B-17, as proven by historical documentation which included results of accident causes and correspondence from senior AAF officials comparing the two aircraft. Another argument might be that B-24s were produced because the B-17 contractors could not mass-produce a sufficient number of B-
> 17s in support of the strategic bombing campaign in Europe. Yet another argument is the cost benefit factor of producing a competitor to the B-17, thus maintaining lower costs for both of the planes. A political argument for producing the B-24 could be the fact that having multiple contractors produce thousands of aircraft in different locations spread the job and employment benefits across the United States. This research will show that the reason for producing the B-24 was actually a combination of all these factors.


----------



## SM79Sparviero (Aug 11, 2005)

> Another argument might be that B-24s were produced because the B-17 contractors could not mass-produce a sufficient number of B-
> 17s in support of the strategic bombing campaign in Europe. Yet another argument is the cost benefit factor of producing a competitor to the B-17, thus maintaining lower costs for both of the planes. A political argument for producing the B-24 could be the fact that having multiple contractors produce thousands of aircraft in different locations spread the job and employment benefits across the United States. This research will show that the reason for producing the B-24 was actually a combination of all these factors.



All these problems would have been easily and intuitively overcome simply if Consolidated had accepted to build the B17 under Boeing licence, for a much lower gain of course.At the place of the 20.261 Liberators built ( VS 12.700 B17s from Boeing) they could build the same number of Flying Fortresses , and we are overlooking here the production of spare components of the aircraft with the consequent economical and uniformity operational advantages...Reuben Hollis Fleet , president of Consolidated was invited in 1938 together with his Chief Engineer to visit Boeing factory in Seattle under proposal from USAAC, and asked to get the licence for the production of B17, but after a superficial look to the Fortress he answered that"he could build a better aircraft".

THE VOICE THE CREWS:
-nicknames for B17:Jeep,Flying Fort,The Queen,Air Destroyer,Space Ship..
-nicks for Liberator: Liquidator,Constipated Libertine,Convulsive Leviathan,Compulsive Lumberer and others ( unrepeatable).

In my opinion US Air Force and Gouvernment had to impose to the industrial leaders to build the best aircraft simply for impelling war necessities.

On the contrary someone in the headquarteers probably had very good motivations to give a balanced fair gain for each industrial corporation so that nobody were disappointed.

this situation is not very different from the Italian public competition for a up-to-date interceptor in 1938 , when 4 (!) aircrafts were chosen , the highest numbers for FIAT G50 and (up-to-date?) CR42, then Macchi C200 while the worst option was left to the best, Reggiane Re-2000!


----------



## Erich (Aug 11, 2005)

geez just go ask a B-17 vet or a B-24 vet as to which one is better. No don't I have almost been punched out. Talk about a rivalry between these combat veterans. Both bombers did the job well. The Lib did not have the altitude and on may craft no belly turrets which the Lib vets thought the Luftwaffe took advantage of.........


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 11, 2005)

Erich is right. Talking to a Veteran is better than a documentary. If you ask me, both bombers were good for their time. The B-17 was useful in Europe. The B-24 was useful over in the pacific.


----------



## SM79Sparviero (Aug 11, 2005)

> No don't I have almost been punched out. Talk about a rivalry between these combat veterans. Both bombers did the job well.



My nickname remembers an ugly unchbacked wood-made aircraft that was born to carry mail and passengers, and sacrificed itself to strike HMS Rodney by a torpedo.How can you think that I don't share this opinion with you?

Some of the main deficiencies of B24:High wing load that caused troubles in take-off and landing and forced the pilots to keep a rigorous up-and down limit in speed;a chaotic arrangement of the cockpit ; a bad visibility for the pilots that could see in take-off/landing mainly the barrels of the front two 12.7 Brownings ( except for the first series, without the turret); a bad stabiliy when it dropped bombs, so that some pilots that had previously flown with B17 called Liberator "a swinging chair"

Much worse, if compared to B17 it couldn't bear heavy damages in battle.

It is exclusively for respect to those gallant airmen that didn't come back home if I wonder why B24 was chosen at the place of a stronger and more reliable bomber.
I hope it was not only for the profit of Consolidated .
Exactly as I have always wondered why Fiat G50 was chosen over a much better but not "politically supported" fighter.


----------



## SM79Sparviero (Aug 11, 2005)

> The B-17 was useful in Europe. The B-24 was useful over in the pacific.
> _________________



I agree. Maybe B17s would have had more chances to come back from the sky of Ploesti.


----------



## Erich (Aug 11, 2005)

according to Luftwafffe veterans in mid 1944 till wars end the US bombers were on even keel with taking punishemnt. New more powerful German HE ammo could take out either bomber without problem and they were both considered fairly easy tagets granted if US P-51's were not out and about


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 11, 2005)

Yeah. But the B-17 probably proved a tougher challenge for the German pilots who attacked them. The B-17 had more gunners than the B-24.


----------



## Erich (Aug 11, 2005)

nope !

the time period I am talking about constitutes a rear facing attack on all US bombers. A bomber without Allied escorts was toast. Both bomber types brewed up equally


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 11, 2005)

SM79Sparviero said:


> > Some of the main deficiencies of B24:High wing load that caused troubles in take-off and landing and forced the pilots to keep a rigorous up-and down limit in speed
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2005)

The B-24 dropped just as much tonnage, if not more, than the B-17 in Europe. It obviously was doing something right! It dropped more tonnage in the entire war than any other bomber. 

From a grand stand-point, if not a pilot point, the B-24 was superior to the B-17. With some field modifications the RAF in the CBI managed to get their Liberators carrying 8000 lbs worth of bombs over 1,100 miles! 

I will give detail when I find the name of the chap that discovered that through the use of extra fuel tanks and playing with cruise control.


----------



## WorkinStiff (Aug 14, 2005)

B-17 crewman said that the best escort was to be flying on a mission with B-24s as the German fighter pilots would ignore the B-17s and go after what they regarded as easier kills; the B-24s.....
I believe that B-24s were chosen for the initial Polesti raids because of their longer range...They were flying from Libya....


----------



## mosquitoman (Aug 15, 2005)

The B-24 is better IMO, it has longer range, larger bombload and faster. At the right altitude a B-24 on 3 engines could overtake a B-17 on all four

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Erich (Aug 15, 2005)

the Germans would not ignore the B-17's and go ater the B-24's. This is a typical Ww 2 US mythical statement. The Germans were vectored in and then up to the individual Staffelkapitäns as to which bomber pulk's would be selected for the attacks

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 17, 2005)

Agree!


----------



## Monkeysee1 (Aug 17, 2005)

The B-24 was faster by 15 kts or so and I think it could indeed carry more bombs but it did not have as high of a ceiling as the B-17 and the B-17 was able to absorb more damage. Although, the most accurate bomb group at the end of the war was a B-24 bomb group, this done through damage assesment etc... Probably being forced to drop from a lower altitude helped. 

So.. if you were a German fighter pilot flying an overweight pig of a wilde sau and you had to choose between the bombers at 25,000 ' or those at 17,000 ' you are probably going to choose the lower ones... the B-24's. Plus why not go after the ones who carry more bombs, and have the added bonus of being easier to shoot down? 

So yeah, the statement that German fighter pilots intentionally went after B-24's first seems pretty contrived at first but in the end its pretty logical when you think about it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Erich (Aug 18, 2005)

Wilde sau during the day........nope.

ok guys let me explain some things 

the German Air force in Reich defence was vectored to their targets from the ground and no preference was made at all by Staffel or Gruppenkommandeurs during an attack. It was all set up from the ground beforehand from 1943 till war's end even with the demise of radar installations in France. to presume that the B-24's flying at lower alt. was the subject of more attacks or the preference of such is all myth propagated by US bomber crewmen as established fact. Sorry too many gun cams of B-17's getting smeared from the rear all over the skies of Germany.

v/r E ~


----------



## Graf (Aug 19, 2005)

From a General's point of view, yes, it would be smarter to produce more B24s than 17s. More bombload, longer range. On paper the war in Europe should be won far easier with the B24.

But as a crewman aboard either aircraft, the B17 was the mount of choice. More durable, more armament for your protection. And of course you have to throw in morale. 

In my opinion I think they complemented each other quite well. Both were a necessity in the war over Europe. 

In the Pacific, B24 all the way.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mosquitoman (Aug 20, 2005)

I'll agree with that, in the Pacific, range was everything


----------



## SM79Sparviero (Aug 21, 2005)

Fortress always takes you home


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2005)

I met a pilot from the 24th last night, a man who flew the -17, -24, -25 and the -47..... He said the B-24 was his favorite craft to fly......

I asked him about the opposistion he faced, and he said that the Sturm Fw's were the worst thing he faced, next to flak.....

Nice fella, but the guy was as deaf as a doorknob tho....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2005)

SM79Sparviero said:


> Fortress always takes you home



but what's the point in going if you're not gonna dent the enemy


----------



## Erich (Aug 21, 2005)

Les, the 24th ? squadron or bomb group. something needs and extra letter I think  

Again both heavies were needed to pound the Reich, the Luftwaffe day fighter force did not care which it came up against, the German crews knew they had to stop the Bomber pulks with whatever they could muster, lastly with the Me 262's, and also knowing that they were going to get jumped by the Mustang squadrons...


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2005)

He didnt say erich... I tried to converse with the fella, but it was at a party and he couldnt hear 90% of what I was asking him....


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 21, 2005)

We dont blame you Les. I still think the B-17 was better though with its additional .50 machine guns...


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2005)

Huh? Blame for what?


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 22, 2005)

The deaf veteran.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 22, 2005)

Yea Im somewhat deaf, but ur just a complete moron who makes no sense whatsoever, and doesnt realize that u read the computer screen, not listen to it....... 

Ill ask again......... Blame for what???


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 23, 2005)

Erich said:


> Again both heavies were needed to pound the Reich



I think that says it right there.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 23, 2005)

In the autumn of 1944, several B24 groups were converted over to the B17. I think the 8th AF knew that they had fewer issues with B17's.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 23, 2005)

And there was planning to replace both of them with the B-32 (as mentioned on other thread)


----------



## Gemhorse (Aug 27, 2005)

Well, the B-24 did sterling work with the Atlantic convoys and Coastal Command, and as mentioned, in the Pacific, as well, which perhaps made it more the adaptable of the two.......

Gemhorse

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Erich (Aug 28, 2005)

I know the RAF 100th group had B-17's on hand but did they also use B-24's ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 28, 2005)

I had an old UK publication "Aircraft 69" evidently the year it was released. It had a pretty lengthy article about 100th group and their B-17s, I don't remember anything about B-24s....


----------



## Glider (Aug 28, 2005)

My understanding was that at their hight they had 20 B17 and 20 B24. This was in addition to 80 Halifax and 160 Mossies of various types.
It seems as if the B24 specialised in electronic jamming equipment, but I am pretty sure other types also carried out such tasks.


----------



## Erich (Aug 28, 2005)

I do know that the B-17's had anti-jammer as I have a story of one that met it's fate to the rear MG 131 on a Ju 88G-6. the crew in the Fort thought they were getting multiple flak hits..........

the mossies besdies anti-jam were focused on taking out German night fighters strolling above the RAF 4 engines flying one direction to another until finding a bogey


----------



## Dac (Aug 30, 2005)

One advantage that the B-24 had was higher cruising speed. I think I'd rather be cruising along at 210mph rather than 160mph in a combat zone.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 30, 2005)

Something I remembered....

My uncle was a B-24 bombardier. He started out training as a flight engineer. He once told me that the B-24 had a bunch of fuel lines and valves located in the bomb-bay that leaked on occasion and sometimes filled the Bomb-bays up with fumes. At one point it was SOP to take off and land with the Bomb-bays cracked open. I don't have a B-24 fuel systems schematic to confirm this but has anyone else heard or read about this? My uncle told me that many B-24s would ignite in the air for no apparent reason!  

I mentioned in another post, he was also the only survivor of an 11-man B-24 crash!


----------



## Aggie08 (Aug 31, 2005)

Graf's quote-

"To fight against twenty Russians that want to have a bite of one, or also against Spitfires, is a joy. And one doesn't know that life is not certain. But the curve into seventy Fortresses lets all the sins of one's life pass before one's eyes."-Hans Philip, JG1

We always hear about how the armament of these bombers wasn't sufficient to effectively fend off attackers, but I can only imagine how incredibly frightening it would be to go up against...lets see...70 fortresses multiplied by 13 .50 cals... 910 guns. Holy hell.


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 31, 2005)

True But your only going against

1. Guns on the side of the defending aircraft facing you.
2. Those who see you in time. 
3. Those that are in position to track you.
4. At 500 mph your in range what 2 seconds, 3 to 4 on a side attack and a minute on a rear attack. This means any particular gun can get (the most possible) anywhere from 600 rounds in a rear attack to 20 rounds in a frontal attack, maximum.
5. Each gun only carried around 750 rounds, so short 3/4 round bursts are used.
6. Divided by the number of attacking aircraft.

The reality is that a good frontal attack may only face 50 rounds half of which aren't even aimed at all. With 25 aimed rounds at a speed differental of 500+ mph - its amazing any hits were made at all!  

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 31, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Something I remembered....
> 
> My uncle was a B-24 bombardier. He started out training as a flight engineer. He once told me that the B-24 had a bunch of fuel lines and valves located in the bomb-bay that leaked on occasion and sometimes filled the Bomb-bays up with fumes. At one point it was SOP to take off and land with the Bomb-bays cracked open. I don't have a B-24 fuel systems schematic to confirm this but has anyone else heard or read about this? My uncle told me that many B-24s would ignite in the air for no apparent reason!



Yes, it was true about the center fuel cell and associated fuel lines. This was a problem that plagued the B24 all of its operational life. Its also the reason some of the most spectacular photo's of WW2 of planes burning up in mid-air were of B24's. One hit by flak or cannon fire could easily torch the fuel cell.


----------



## Aggie08 (Sep 3, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> True But your only going against
> 
> 1. Guns on the side of the defending aircraft facing you.
> 2. Those who see you in time.
> ...



As true as that may be, I doubt that any Luftwaffe pilots were able to calm themselves with an explanation like that.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 3, 2005)

Aggie08 said:


> As true as that may be, I doubt that any Luftwaffe pilots were able to calm themselves with an explanation like that.



No Doubt. The bombers did get more than a few though I don't really belive the 6,086 the AAF claimed.

wmaxt


----------



## Erich (Sep 3, 2005)

most probably a 1/3rd of the figure if not far less...........every Fw 190 with poor fuels as it split S'd, drug out carbon from the engine causing them to smoke so it appeared a confirmed downing to the heavies gunners


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 3, 2005)

Erich said:


> most probably a 1/3rd of the figure if not far less...........every Fw 190 with poor fuels as it split S'd, drug out carbon from the engine causing them to smoke so it appeared a confirmed downing to the heavies gunners



True, plus with several people shooting from several angles, kills were often awarded to more than one gunner. Lastly if the number was higher it helped morale in that the gunners felt they had more influence in their own safety.

wmaxt


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 3, 2005)

Erich said:


> most probably a 1/3rd of the figure if not far less...........every Fw 190 with poor fuels as it split S'd, drug out carbon from the engine causing them to smoke so it appeared a confirmed downing to the heavies gunners


Not just the BMWs but also the DBs. From what I have read it was a favourite tactic during BoB by 109 pilots to produce lots of black exhaust by throttle manipulation so the attacking Spit or Hurrie would break off the persuit, thinking the 109 was a goner.


----------



## Erich (Sep 3, 2005)

even the Bf 110G-2's did it as well when they banked away from the US bombers. it was a horror to set up attacks from the front by staffels, then plow through the formations and hopeful you and your buddies would come out the rear of the formation with all your digits just to be in the wrong place as Allied escorts dived upon you


----------



## Lunatic (Sep 5, 2005)

One only has to look for pictures of battle damaged B-17's and B-24's that made it home to see which was the tougher plane. Yes the MK108's could kill either plane, but the B-17 was more likely to survive such an attack. The B-24 was much more likey to succumb to less than instant killing damage on the way home than the B-17, especially the damage caused by flak.

The B-24 had the range advantage, and a minimal speed advantage, the B-17 could fly higher. So each was suited for different types of missions, though often they were used for the same types of missions. IIRC the big weak point of the B-24 was at the wing root - it could not take much damage between the inboard engine and the fuselage on the wing before the wing would fail catastrophically usually resulting in loss of the entire crew.

As for the guns, well IMO I think they'd have done better to eliminate all the fixed possition guns and go with the four turrets alone. On the B-17 (G) this would have meant the chin, top, belly, and tail turrets. Arguably the chin turret could have been removed as well - attacking fighters comming from the front were nearly impossible to hit anyway. Eliminating these other positions would have reduced the weight of the plane by over 1000 lbs (including reduction of crew) or perhaps 1500+ lbs if the chin turret were removed. This would have noticably increased the speed of the plane.

One of the big advantages of the B-24 was its bomb capacity. The B-17 bombay was rather cramped and did not allow for a large variety of internal bomb configurations. I believe the maximum bombload was 8 x 1000 lbs bombs, and these had to have the small fins which reduced accuracy. Going down to 500 lbs bombs, only 6 could be carried. The B-24's bombay was more versitile allowing more payload to be carried and more flexability in the configuration. For many target types, more smaller bombs were better. This was especailly true in the PTO where targets tended not to be as hardened.

Another factor was the B-24 was eaiser to build. The B-17 was designed well before the war and production shortcuts were not really built into the design. The B-24 design was brought online during the war and much more thought was given to how to build them quickly.

And yes, the B-24 did drop more tonnage than the B-17. But there were more B-24's so to get a good comparison it'd have to be indexed to number of sorties flown.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2005)

I believe the B-24 dropped most of its bombs in the Med and in the Pacific. Could this have anything to do with the fact that it coudl not take as much damage as the B-17?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 5, 2005)

it's proberly more to do with the -24's superior range.........


----------



## Erich (Sep 5, 2005)

it did not matter towhom the Luftwaffe was attacking during 44, the forward attacks by staffels was more in jeopardy due to the forward height issue than a rear attck from slightly below. If the agressor was there whther 1-2 Sturm Fw's or 109G's either bomber was going to go down. Was just given some new materials on the 3cm rounds, the four that did just nasty work. One blue colored cartridge fiend, once entering through the aluminum skin would top explode like a Roman candle it was put burning everything it could touch besides sending shardes of steel fragments in every direction


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 5, 2005)

The B24's range advantage in the pacific was critical. In 1943, the 380th BG went on a few mission that were 1600 miles one way, a 3200 mile round trip. The B17 could not do that.

Plus the Japanese defenses were far less dangerous than the Germans. That offset the B24's less battle worthyness compared to the B17.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2005)

I dont know if I would go as to say the Japanese defenses were far less dangerous than the Germans. The Germans may have had a better Anti Aircraft network set up but I would not go as far as to say less dangerous.


----------



## Erich (Sep 5, 2005)

trouble brewing several thousand feet behind the US Pulk.

SturmFw's with the 4 rounds that I briefly mentioned, the 5th on the right a practice round. the first two rounds, blue was a single with 4 of the regular yellow bodied M rounds in a belt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2005)

Cool, good stuff.


----------



## Lunatic (Sep 6, 2005)

Erich said:


> trouble brewing several thousand feet behind the US Pulk.
> 
> SturmFw's with the 4 rounds that I briefly mentioned, the 5th on the right a practice round. the first two rounds, blue was a single with 4 of the regular yellow bodied M rounds in a belt



Are you sure that blue round is not the hydrostatically fused incendairy?

Rounds 1-3 appear to be Ausf. A's, where 4 5 are Ausf. C's ???


----------



## Erich (Sep 6, 2005)

Lune I had thought similiar ideas and even # 4 is an Incendiary round. there are actually something like 8 rounds used not counting practice and will have to dig in my binder for the 2 inch thick stuff just on the mk 108 rounds. will list them again as I did previously about a year or more ago. I'll get this straightened out. 

For kommando Welter the change was 4 rounds of yellow bodied Minengeschoss to 1 round night incendiary which had the more streamlined body, but again for exactness I will further my investigation ..... for Mossie hgunting they found that by using just two mk 108's there was sufficient carnage to take the twin engine down and even then with the speed of the 262 behind they always ran through the debris which was a total pisser when they landed as Kurt Welter would always do a walk aropund with the pilot after the mission and if there was any external damage to any visible part Kurt would let go his fury. He was even hard on himself and ........... oh wait I am giving away details from our book ....


----------



## Erich (Sep 6, 2005)

dang I am running......

yellow body ~ Minen/HE Shell
Blue body, Brandgeschoss ~ Incendiary Shell

yellow body with red ring ~ shell with tracer

yellow body with dark red ring ~ this has a pointed or slender nose, shell with special night tracer

yellow body with grene ring ~ nasy thing ! shell with self destroying round/fuze

yellow body with blue ring ~ HE/Incendiary shell

grey body ~ exercise shell

more to come


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2005)

Damn imagine if you got the colors mixed up and could not remember what was what!


----------



## Erich (Sep 7, 2005)

vielen Dank für der Schwarze Man Adler ! 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 7, 2005)

i think he's talking to you adler


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2005)

Erich said:


> vielen Dank für der Schwarze Man Adler ! 8)



Warum der Schwarze Man, Erich? Ich verstehe dich jetzt grad nicht.


----------



## Erich (Sep 7, 2005)

Was ist das ?

ok Adler you had them work for you as well. the black men or mechanics due to the black overall appearance of their coveralls,,,,,, inseperable from a successful crew.

Klar ?


----------



## Erich (Sep 7, 2005)

nasty shit coming at the bombers and fighters of the US AF

close-up of the 3cm Mk 108 fuzes


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2005)

Erich said:


> Was ist das ?
> 
> ok Adler you had them work for you as well. the black men or mechanics due to the black overall appearance of their coveralls,,,,,, inseperable from a successful crew.
> 
> Klar ?



Ach Ja jetzt verstehe ich!


----------



## Erich (Sep 7, 2005)

I thought you'd get it 8) A B-24 gets it's ass kicked by Minen rounds


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2005)

It took a while but I figured it out.

Nice pic there.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Sep 14, 2005)

Yeah. Great shot right there. B-17s and B-24s were often the prey to several German fighters.

You had to have guts being in a B-17 or -24 if you could take rounds like that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 16, 2005)

Yeah I deffinatly would not have wanted to be a bomber fighter but later in the war when there swarms of "Little Friend" flying around it got a little better.


----------



## Erich (Sep 16, 2005)

a nasty hit from a SturmFw of II.Sturm/JG 4 in the fall of 1944


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 16, 2005)

Neat how you can see the Engine and probably fuel in the wings going up.


----------



## Lunatic (Sep 20, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Neat how you can see the Engine and probably fuel in the wings going up.



That's exactly what your seeing - the inner wing fuel tank is exploding.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 23, 2005)

Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Neat how you can see the Engine and probably fuel in the wings going up.
> ...



Yes I was able to figure that out. Maintaining aircraft kind of gives me an idea of the anatomy of an aircraft.  Thanks anyhow though.


----------



## Erich (Sep 23, 2005)

3 other lethal hits were given and the B-24 went down under the guns of the Fw 190A-8/R2 pilot on 27 September 1944, confirmed by other members of the 445th bomb group that the Germans had attacked.....

E


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 23, 2005)

I was considerably better for 8th and 15th AF crewmen in the later stages of the way. Towards the end of 1944 and all of 1945 a large number of bomber gunners were completing their tours without ever having fired their guns in anger. But flak was also dangers and as lethal as the Mk108 and Mk103 were, the 88mm was even worse. I am and always will be deeply impressed by the bravery of those bomber crews (regardless of what they flew in).


----------



## CurzonDax (Sep 23, 2005)

On the other hand both of these planes, especially in the first years of the war, probably until '43/'44, gave the JAF pilots fits. Sakai hated going up against 17s even though I think he shot down several.

:{)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 23, 2005)

Even the German pilots weren't wild about attacking a formation of Libs or Forts. Formations were often attacked by fighter equipped with rockets. If conventional fighters attack a formation that always did it in mass. Note also the Luftwaffe strategy of picking off the stragglers.


----------



## Erich (Sep 23, 2005)

rockets were used in 43 early 44 and then banned until march of 45 with the Me 262, JG 7 unit. LG, the Mk 103 was never used on the bombers except as an experimental installation which failed due to ballistic characteristics and the long rod barrels which through off aerodynamics. Several prototypes on the Fw 190A were used as experiments but never flown on ops. Mk 108 on the other hand used on the 262, Bf 110G's, Bf 109G, K's and the Fw 190's, Me 163 Komet, besides the hosts using 2cm Mausers


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 23, 2005)

Either way the basic point remains true. The Luftwaffe did realize there was an inherit danger in attack a massed formation of bombers. One way another (where by rocket barrage or sheer mass of fighters) the formations needed to be broken up.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2005)

Erich said:


> rockets were used in 43 early 44 and then banned until march of 45 with the Me 262, JG 7 unit.



What were they banned for.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 24, 2005)

If I were to take a guess, I would say that rocket-equipped fighters were sitting ducks against Allied escorts. Mid-1944 would have been right about the time the 8th AF finally figured out how to fly proper escort missions.


----------



## Erich (Sep 24, 2005)

Adler, the Br 21cm launcher/rocket was big and cumbersome and not accurate at all. In the case of the Bf 110G-2 it was best for the crews to line up slightly staggered by stafflen and let go with a monstrous barrage. sometimes the rockets hit the mark sometimes they exploded before reaching the heavy bomber formations. the work of these things was to break up the bomber pulks and spread chaos, the bombers loosing the tight formations and then single and twin engine 110's and 410's could close in with their massive firepower of 2cm weapons.

Still experiments were done with JG 3 and JG 300 SturmFw's with a single rearward firing rocket launcher as the Fw's banked upward frm rear to front of the US bombers to fire these weapons which did not score a single hit. Even the Stab of JG 7 had two fitted underneath the nose for Me 262's but again the wieght problem and the inaccuracy caused almost immediate removal, the R4M's were in the works with JGr 10 with successful testing and immediate deliveries to JG 7 in the spring of 45. Again still not that accurate but the lethality of so many rockets per jet fired from the rear and flanks usually would cause the demise of several bombers over the Reich.

E ` and LG you are quite correct with twin engine a/c carrying the heavy Br 21cm if these a/c did not have high cover protection then they were fodder to P-47's and Stangs.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

I always thought that the R4M's were quite accurate.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 25, 2005)

I don't think any of the WWII rockets were especially accurate.

And my favorite installation for the 21cm rockets was the 6-barrel, rotary system installed in the Bombay of a Me-410. At least it looked cool.


----------



## Erich (Sep 25, 2005)

coll maybe but not functional nor operational, blowing the nose of the creature. Interesting theoery though.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

I agree.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 25, 2005)

I never said it was effective. But the potential firepower was very impressive. And the drag would have been minimal compared with traditional underwing installations.

Does anyone remember the old Aces over Europe flight sim? You coudn't hit crap with the 21cm rockets on that game.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

Never played it.


----------



## Lou IV (Sep 29, 2005)

(Just trying to get back to the original subject)


the lancaster kicks ass said:


> SM79Sparviero said:
> 
> 
> > Fortress always takes you home
> ...



Interesting point! But if you lose too many aircraft (especially before they drop their bombs) you're not gonna dent the enemy either! 

My two cents: B-17 B-24 - two different design philosophies, neither much more technologically advanced than the other, B-24 generally lighter empty weight resulting in more range but less combat resistance.
Heard many folks say that once a Liberator was on fire, good chance that it was going to explode.

Biggest tradeoff was in the high aspect-ratio wing (in my opinion). It would have been stronger if they hadn't decided to stow the main gear inside of it (between the spars) as opposed to the B-17 inside the inner engine cowlings. So, the B-24 structurally had a "big hole" in each wing.

Much as I respect the Liberator, if I had been alive back then and had a choice, I would have chosen the -17 for combat.

B-24 = more efficient B-17 = safer for crews


----------



## Lou IV (Sep 29, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> I don't think any of the WWII rockets were especially accurate.



Quite True! Just saw a whole bunch of WWII footage the other day of rocket attacks on ships. Lotsa rockets going into the water!


----------



## Erich (Sep 29, 2005)

looked through several German Luftw. gun cams. both on the rears of B-24 and B-17 pulks. hate to say it guys, neither a/c made it during the attacks. always torn to pieces and no P-51's to save the day at least for these poor bomber crews....


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 29, 2005)

the "famous" clips of B17's and B24's that Ive seen, that were being ripped up looked like they had been abandoned. Noone was shooting back at the pursuing fighters.


----------



## Erich (Sep 29, 2005)

I do not own famous clips syscom. I have over 50 different selections with many showing the destruction by SturmFw's. the tail gunner was shooting and then boom all over for him as the Fw closed and made mince meat out fo the bomber. All I can say is they are really ugly. I have posted stills elsewhere on this thread, they the bombers, were all manned


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 29, 2005)

Are u ever going to be able to get some vid clips chopped up for us erich??? I remember once awhile back u stated u were waiting on ur pal to get back into town so he could make some .mpgs for u.....


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 29, 2005)

Remember the one of the B17 that the fighter got REAL close up and shot it up. It even shows the belly turret turret getting hit, and the wheel getting blasted so hard it falls down from the nacelle. That plane was abandoned and wasnt shooting back. Even the belly turret was pointing downward meaning the gunner most likely got out and jumped.

By "famous", I mean shown quite often on TV or in video clips.

Id love to see all of your ones. Have a thread for "clip of the day".


----------



## Erich (Sep 29, 2005)

I've seen it Les. It is almost strange. Over tha alpen in the winter of 43-44. Attacked by a Bf 110G-2 with upper mg's and lower 2cm's. The tail gunner is working feverously to put out the 110 but cannot and gets some rounds putiing him out of commission, the belley turret receives hits, he gets killed I would imagine, and now the 17 is doomed. the 110G closes in way too close and trys to let fly the upper mgs which basically really do nothing along the engines which are already spinning and into the wings before he banks off to the left. another one is a spring 44 attack head on by a Fw 190A-7, 20mm's cover the upper fuselage after the cockpit is first hit. Several clips that are around and yes I own them show a sight ring right in the middle of the films ` action showing the attacking fw or 109's from the rear pouncing on US bombers. these films were used to train young pilots and shows just what angle and bead to use on the rear of the heavy a/c.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

I would love to see what you got Erich. You should post some of it.


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 24, 2005)

My two cents: B-17 B-24 - two different design philosophies, neither much more technologically advanced than the other (quote)

I agree wholeheartedly. For example in the maritime role, the B-24 is my second fav bomber (my fav is the Condor). Granted the Forts were dandy sea-rescue craft, but the navalized versions that the Coastal Command and the USN flew were very effective. B-17s were legendary in how much they sucked against ships.

But I digress, two different philosophies, two different ways of getting the bombs to target. 

:{)


----------



## flakhappy (Feb 2, 2008)

Our crew in 1944 happened to fly in both 17s and 24s in Europe. No question, the 17s were more stable, flew higher (safer) and used less fuel. With Davis wing, 24s had to use more power going to target in order to keep in formation. They usually carried 2.5 tons of bombs in order to climb above 23,000 feet, while 17s always carried 3 tons, except when carrying frags or incendiaries, which loaded differently. This is borne out by arming reports after the war. Because of lower lift and low speeds, 24s had problems taking off with 3 tons of bombs. 24s did well in Pacific where they could spread out and fly relatively low. They could use one of their bomb bays for extra fuel.


----------



## glennasher (Feb 2, 2008)

I recall reading, somewhere, sometime, that the B-24's flight controls were hydraulics-operated, vs the B-17's electrically operated controls, and that the B-24 was more vulnerable because of all the hoses needed for the hydraulics. Whether that was accurate or not, I just don't know, can anyone clear that up?


----------



## drgondog (Feb 2, 2008)

Lightning Guy said:


> If I were to take a guess, I would say that rocket-equipped fighters were sitting ducks against Allied escorts. Mid-1944 would have been right about the time the 8th AF finally figured out how to fly proper escort missions.



I'm curious - what is your definition of a 'proper escort mission' and why you pinpoint Mid-1944? before the 'aha'?


----------



## drgondog (Feb 2, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes I was able to figure that out. Maintaining aircraft kind of gives me an idea of the anatomy of an aircraft.  Thanks anyhow though.



Lol - Ya think?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 2, 2008)

glennasher said:


> I recall reading, somewhere, sometime, that the B-24's flight controls were hydraulics-operated, vs the B-17's electrically operated controls, and that the B-24 was more vulnerable because of all the hoses needed for the hydraulics. Whether that was accurate or not, I just don't know, can anyone clear that up?


I don't believe either one had boosted controls.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 2, 2008)

Lunatic said:


> One only has to look for pictures of battle damaged B-17's and B-24's that made it home to see which was the tougher plane. Yes the MK108's could kill either plane, but the B-17 was more likely to survive such an attack. The B-24 was much more likey to succumb to less than instant killing damage on the way home than the B-17, especially the damage caused by flak.
> 
> The B-24 had the range advantage, and a minimal speed advantage, the B-17 could fly higher. So each was suited for different types of missions, though often they were used for the same types of missions. IIRC the big weak point of the B-24 was at the wing root - it could not take much damage between the inboard engine and the fuselage on the wing before the wing would fail catastrophically usually resulting in loss of the entire crew.
> 
> ...



IIRC, I believe that the B-24, particularly for 8th and 9th AF, averaged about 500 pounds more for same mission profiles? Would have to dig

The pilots that flew both in combat generally preferred the B-17 for sheer 'pilot's airplane' particularly at altitude. B-24 drivers are notorious for abnormal forearm development stimulated by formation flying in them.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 2, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Lol - Ya think?



It was meant to be taken half hearted...


----------



## fly boy (Feb 4, 2008)

i would go for b-17 beacuse if you have seen war movies the b-17s have come back with 3 engiens out and about a 4ft. hole in the side and part of wing and tail off and it still flys like it never been hit.


----------



## flakhappy (Jun 10, 2009)

Sparvierro is right. B24s did magnificent service in the Pacific theater where neither high altitude nor close formations were necessary. They could fill one bomb bay with extra fuel and fly all day. Take it from a radio operator who flew in both planes, however, that the B17 was much more stable in flight, could fly to much higher altitudes, and could bring their crews home on two engines. German fighters didhn't have any preference, in my memory, but German flak gunners were happy to shoot at B-24s rather than B-17s when those B-24s were 5-6 thousand feet lower in altitude. The B-24s were built to carry a lot of bombs, but it was discovered that they couldn't climb past 25,000 feet when loaded with three tons, so they carried 2 1/2 tons. In B-17s our load was always 3 tons and we often bombed from over 30,000 feet. B-24s had what was called a Davis, high-speed wing that was not efficient at low speeds, i.e. takeoffs and climbing to the target. B-17s with a fairly low power setting, resulting in an indicated air speed of about 150 mph, would fly elegantly in close formation while climbing with a full load to the target. At those same power settings the B-24 wouldn't hold a heading and would bob all over the sky. Consequently, group leaders had to increase power settings to keep the planes reasonably stable, resulting in much higher fuel consumption. These were just a few of the reasons Gen. Doolittle placed his B24 groups in one air division and announced to Hap Arnold that he wouldn't accept any more. Some B-24 crews were transferred to B-17s at that time, including ours, and some B-24s were sent from England to the 15th AF in Italy. Anyone who is interested in hearing about more weaknesses in the B-24 can contact me if they wish. Naturally, most crews of B-24s, like crews of any other type of aircraft, will say they loved their planes if they brought them home safely. I must admit that during the was I discovered another plane that was even more unstable than the B24. It was the Curtiss C46.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 10, 2009)

Flakhappy, what bomb group did you fly with?

I know a lot of people here on this forum would love to hear more.


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Jun 10, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Flakhappy, what bomb group did you fly with?
> 
> I know a lot of people here on this forum would love to hear more.


I'm one of them. 


Wheelsup


----------



## comiso90 (Jun 10, 2009)

flakhappy:.. great insight.. thanks for the info. Your post illustrates that each aircraft is a "weapons system" and you cannot measure an aircraft based on basic performance stats. You have to consider the whole package and how it works together.

Please stay around and visit other threads!

THANKS


----------



## flakhappy (Jun 10, 2009)

Hi to wheelsup and syscom3. I was in the 414th Sqdn, 97th BG, 5th Wing, 15th AF. It was based at Amendola while I was there. My crew was switched to B-17s before we flew overseas, then by some odd fate we were sent to Italy rather than to Eng. My pilots were most pleased of all to switch to B-17s. In our crew of 10 we lost two KIA. One became a POW, and one (I) was in a crash-landing in then Yugoslavia. All these bad things happened when as individuals we were flying with other crews.


----------



## seesul (Jun 10, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Flakhappy, what bomb group did you fly with?
> 
> I know a lot of people here on this forum would love to hear more.



More about flakhappy also here http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/saaf-foggia-italy-1944-a-12058.html


----------



## TheMustangRider (Jun 10, 2009)

It is amazing to have a WWII hero here in the forum to share his stories and knowledge with us. Flakhappy my hat is off to you sir and thank you for your military service.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## seesul (Jun 10, 2009)

Can´t agree more.


----------



## diddyriddick (Jun 11, 2009)

TheMustangRider said:


> It is amazing to have a WWII hero here in the forum to share his stories and knowledge with us. Flakhappy my hat is off to you sir and thank you for your military service.



Agreed!


----------



## Catch22 (Jun 11, 2009)

diddyriddick said:


> Agreed!



Ditto!


----------



## renrich (Jun 13, 2009)

flakhappy, many thanks to you for your posts. I ditto what comis said. It is a lesson for us that raw performance numbers don't always tell all the story. I have(had) several friends who flew or flew in B17s and B24s in WW2. One who flew B24s said that one tactic the B24 utilised was that after the bomb release, the B24 could lose some altitude very quickly to confound the AA gunners. He indicated that the B17 was not well suited for this maneuver. Could you comment on that?


----------



## comiso90 (Jun 13, 2009)

renrich said:


> One who flew B24s said that one tactic the B24 utilised was that after the bomb release, the B24 could lose some altitude very quickly to confound the AA gunners. He indicated that the B17 was not well suited for this maneuver. Could you comment on that?





I'd hate to have to make that decision. It seems like the trick would work once! It's a long climb back up.


,


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 13, 2009)

There used to be another member here that was a B17 pilot. "Jules" I think was his name.

He flew with the 2nd BG in 1943.


----------



## flakhappy (Jun 13, 2009)

After reading all the msgs. in this forum here are only a couple of comments from an 85-yr old geezer who flew 51 missions in a B-17 in the 15th AF: There was very rarely any advantage from speed in a heavy bomber when the fighters could outpace any of us by at least a hundred mph. Much more important was a stable aircraft that one could depend on, and a plane that could fly the highest. There seems to be a big interest in the defenses against fighters when the much greater danger to bombers was the flak, to which we lost many more planes than to fighters. At least we could shoot back against fighters. We were mostly skinny kids who were scared to death on most missions---and cold. I see very few discussions or comments about the terrible cold. I for one chose to wear my GI shoes inside fleece-lined boots because if one had to bail out the boots usually flew off, and I didn't want to tramp around Europe in my stocking feet. My feet got so cold in 50-below temperatures that I kicked the bulkhead ahead of me in the radio room until it bulged into the bomb bay. The ground crew chief asked me one day if I had something against his airplane. Later developments in electric suits included heated gloves and shoes. Another memory that might be interesting to some: brass at 15th AF headquarters at one time wanted to remove the tracers from our ammo belts. We knew that tracers didnj't fly straight, but we argued successfully that it was most important that the enemy fighter pilots knew they had been seen and were being fired at. They would often pull away if they saw those golf balls flying past.


----------



## flakhappy (Jun 13, 2009)

Renrich, maneuvering after bomb release was pretty tricky, and could easily break up a formation, and that of course could be dangerous. At briefings before missions the officer leading the group, flying in the left seat of the lead plane, would gather the other pilots together and among other things agree on which way he planned to "break" after bombs away. That way we didn't end up scattered all over the sky. B-17s didn't dive well for one thing. Our group commander swore on taking over the group in the summer of 44 that he didn't intend to "cruise" over any defended targets. Consequently, as we made the big turn at our Initial Point (IP) he'd boost power quite a lot and we'd sail over the Aiming Point at a much higher speed. Only a few planes in my experience had to fall behind during the run. I think the tactic threw the flak gunners off enough to help us. One objective of flak defenses was to try to break up our formations while lead bombardiers were setting up on target. If they could blow up leading elements, they had it made.


----------



## renrich (Jun 13, 2009)

FH, your observations are greatly appreciated. One of the books I have read about your war mentioned that casualties from frostbite were a great hazard. Seems like I remember the gun the radio operator used was removed and that hatch closed up which helped slightly to decrease the draught. Was that true?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 13, 2009)

Thanks for sharing flakhappy, nothing beats data from the source!


----------



## Flyboy2 (Jun 13, 2009)

Wow thanks for the information!


----------



## flakhappy (Jun 17, 2009)

renrich said:


> FH, your observations are greatly appreciated. One of the books I have read about your war mentioned that casualties from frostbite were a great hazard. Seems like I remember the gun the radio operator used was removed and that hatch closed up which helped slightly to decrease the draught. Was that true?



In the G model Seventeen the radio gun and both waist gun windows were fixed, with the gun in each case mounted at the bottom, so that source of wind was eliminated. In the 15th AF while I was a member the radio operator's gun remained in use. I always thought it and the waist guns could have been eliminated, saving much weight. The only heat on a Seventeen, beyond our electric "blue bunnies," was on the flight deck, provided by a device attached to NO. 2 engine. That kept the pilots and engineer reasonably comfortable, but nobody else. One of the radio operator's duties was to observe the release of bombs during thebomb run and report it as 'bombs away!" or if they did not release, to yell "salvo", so the bombardier could use a different circuit and still dump the load in the formation's pattern. Salvoing three tons of bombs at once would make the plane leap a few feet. I once forgot to pull my goggles down before the bomb run and when the bay doors opened the moisture on my eyeballs froze, crystallizing my view. My eyes were red and sore for a week. On one occasion we were carrying clusters of 20-lb frag bombs and the lower clusers had frozen solid. Those lower racks failed the release their clusters for about 20 seconds, resulting in several 20-pound frag bombs rolling on the narrow catwalk. The engineer and I had to use walk-around oxygen bottles and gingerly kick them off before we could close the bay doors.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 17, 2009)

Ok, frozen eyeballs made me cringe!


----------



## Butters (Jun 17, 2009)

flakhappy,

The accounts of the men who did the fighting in WWII has always been the focus of my interest in military aviation. Your accounts are fascinating, and really add the essential human touch that is so often absent in these discussions about numbers and specs. I just want you to know how much I, and everyone here, appreciates your taking the time to share your experiences with us. And we're even more appreciative of what you went thru for all of us.

Thank you,sir.

James


----------



## renrich (Jun 18, 2009)

Butters, I concur with all you said. Thanks for expressing those sentiments.


----------



## Airbone Bunny (Jun 19, 2009)

I agree. Thanks a lot Flakhappy for so much valuable information


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Jun 20, 2009)

I have to agree with VB on the frozen eyeball thing making me cringe. 

Thanks for taking the time to tell us about your experiences.
It brings home the realness of the situation vividly to me.


Wheelsup


----------



## beaupower32 (Jun 20, 2009)

fly boy said:


> i would go for b-17 beacuse if you have seen war movies the b-17s have come back with 3 engiens out and about a 4ft. hole in the side and part of wing and tail off and it still flys like it never been hit.





Is he serious?


----------



## hoangtrang (Oct 6, 2009)

Thanks ....
I hope other members would love to share their great photos and memories this site.

I'm also an idiot spammer.....


----------



## jimh (Oct 7, 2009)

Great stories Flakhappy...there is nothing better than firsthand accounts. I am lucky enough to fly both the 17 and 24. Shot this picture over NAS Weymouth just the other night.




The 24 is a much more demanding airplane to fly but is very comfortable once you get used to it. The 17 is much more stable but ALOT slower, almost 20mph slower in cruise. We are flying around at an average weight of 40,000lbs. BOTH aircraft perform well with two engines out (simulated on checkride) but you would not want to do this for any length of time. The 24 and 17 have NO boost on the controls. The only two things hydraulic on a 17 are the brakes and cowl flaps, everything else is electric...including the ball turret. The 24 is just the opposite, flaps, brakes, and bomb bay doors are hydraulic while the prop governors and cowl flaps are electric. The fuel booster pumps are located in the bomb bay and as long as the the system is maintained you shouldn't get any fuel smell at all with them running (take off and landing OR emergency) The 24 is much easier to land compared to the 17 in a stiff crosswind and in general they both have thier own personalities, none of them bad. 

jim harley


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 7, 2009)

jimh said:


> ....I am lucky enough to fly both the 17 and 24. Shot this picture over NAS Weymouth just the other night.



Fly in as a passanger or actuall pilot the aircraft?


----------



## jimh (Oct 7, 2009)

Pilot...typed in the 24, 25, and 17...also fly the T-6(60hours), Stearman(50hours), and around 30 hours in the 51. Most of my time is in the bombers, probably 1500 combined. Doesn't mean a whole lot in todays jet world, but I have a rule, I don't fly anything built after 1955...love the history and the men and women that made these aircraft what they are. 

jim harley
cfdn.org


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 7, 2009)

You are one lucky man!


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 7, 2009)

Nice Jim!


----------



## JohnC (Jan 17, 2012)

I laughed when I read the posts that have been written here. While both aircraft were important and did their respective jobs, the B-17 got the glory while the B-24 did the work. Not only did the B-24 have a longer range in flight, it could carry a much larger payload of bombs. Sadly, historians have got it wrong. The B-s4 was not only a durable bomber in flight, it had many features that the B-17 did not have. For instance, German pilots would be wary attempting to fly into "the box" of B-24's due to the tailgunners range of movement in the B-24, which was much more capable than that of the B-17. Further, if you want "true valor" the B-24 raid on Ploesti was the only mission in WW2 that garnered 5 Medals of honor in one mission. Even todays movies still "glorify" the B-17 like Memphis Belle and Red Tails when in reality german cities were being pummeled at twice the payload from the B-24. Reality check. You bet.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 17, 2012)

JohnC said:


> I laughed when I read the posts that have been written here. While both aircraft were important and did their respective jobs, the B-17 got the glory while the B-24 did the work. Not only did the B-24 have a longer range in flight, it could carry a much larger payload of bombs. Sadly, historians have got it wrong. The B-s4 was not only a durable bomber in flight, it had many features that the B-17 did not have. For instance, *German pilots would be wary attempting to fly into "the box" of B-24's due to the tailgunners range of movement in the B-24, which was much more capable than that of the B-17. *Further, if you want "true valor" the B-24 raid on Ploesti was the only mission in WW2 that garnered 5 Medals of honor in one mission. Even todays movies still "glorify" the B-17 like Memphis Belle and Red Tails when in reality german cities were being pummeled at twice the payload from the B-24. Reality check. You bet.



John, can you provide DOCUMENTED proof of this? Although I sway with the B-24, on this site I would suggest backing your claim up with evidence before "laughing" at some of the posts on here.


----------



## Njaco (Jan 17, 2012)

JohnC said:


> I laughed when I read the posts that have been written here. While both aircraft were important and did their respective jobs, the B-17 got the glory while the B-24 did the work. Not only did the B-24 have a longer range in flight, it could carry a much larger payload of bombs. Sadly, historians have got it wrong. The B-s4 was not only a durable bomber in flight, it had many features that the B-17 did not have. For instance, German pilots would be wary attempting to fly into "the box" of B-24's due to the tailgunners range of movement in the B-24, which was much more capable than that of the B-17. Further, if you want "true valor" the B-24 raid on Ploesti was the only mission in WW2 that garnered 5 Medals of honor in one mission. Even todays movies still "glorify" the B-17 like Memphis Belle and Red Tails *when in reality german cities were being pummeled at twice the payload from the B-24*. Reality check. You bet.



I won't argue the merits of the B-17 vs B-24 and agree with your take on the 24, but German cities were being plastered predominately by B-17s. The US VIII AF was predominately B-17 and were pounding German cities from about 1943 onward. The B-24 dominated the US XIV AF and were pounding Axis targets in the Med. Only later did they fly missions into Germany.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 17, 2012)

Flakhappy - I just happened to drop into this thread. The 97th actually was the first 8th AF BG (heavy) to be assigned to England. 

Your famous BG actually flew the 8th's first combat mission on August 17, 1942. Flew out of Polebrook then Grafton Underwood before going to Africa. The 97th came to England in May 1942 and flew last combat mission w/8AF on October 21st 1942 then headed for 12th AF in Africa to form the core of heavy BG capability for 12th AF - later the 15th.

One great history as well as post WWII with SAC.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 17, 2012)

JohnC said:


> I laughed when I read the posts that have been written here. While both aircraft were important and did their respective jobs, the B-17 got the glory while the B-24 did the work. Not only did the B-24 have a longer range in flight, it could carry a much larger payload of bombs. Sadly, historians have got it wrong. The B-s4 was not only a durable bomber in flight, it had many features that the B-17 did not have. For instance, German pilots would be wary attempting to fly into "the box" of B-24's due to the tailgunners range of movement in the B-24, which was much more capable than that of the B-17. Further, if you want "true valor" the B-24 raid on Ploesti was the only mission in WW2 that garnered 5 Medals of honor in one mission. Even todays movies still "glorify" the B-17 like Memphis Belle and Red Tails when in reality german cities were being pummeled at twice the payload from the B-24. Reality check. You bet.



Interesting remarks. True that Tidal Wave produced five MoH. How does that reflect positively for B-24 effectiveness? 

The B-24 probably was a better all around heavy bomber than the B-17 in every theatre except ETO/MTO because of its range and payload, particularly where high altitude operations were demanded because of the threat over enemy airspace - like Germany. Flakhappy gave the reasons he believed the B-17 was preferred by 8th AF and those are documented in many places including Doolittle's biography.

FH brings up another anomaly about relative speeds in ETO. A B-17 doing 150mph IAS at 30K is actually doing about 215mph, at 25K its doing about 205

The B-24 doing 170mph IAS at 20K is doing about 218mph. Not a significant difference. Further, the B-17 operated very well at 25 to 30K versus the B-24 at 20-22K and that happened to be perfectly in the strike zone of the P-51, P-38 and P-47 and to the detriment of the Fw 190 whose BMW801 performance was declining from ~ 20K. 

As to preference of LW fighters, I have read a lot of accounts as well as spoken to more than a few LW aces. Nobody expressed a preference to go after B-17s. They took on any bomber but preferred to find unescorted bombers and were indifferent to a range of motion from the tail guns. Historically, the numbers show that B-24 formations were very vulnerable to fighters with heavy weapons. 

The bloodiest single day losses to bomber squadrons after May 1944 were B-24s being hit by combinations of Me 410s (june 20, 491st BG), and Fw 190 Sturms (July 7, 491st - Sept 27, 445th BG - Nov 26, 492nd BG) - all stern attacks which by your standard was one the LW 'feared' on the B-24.

On the other hand it would be silly to claim that B-17s were less vulnerable - but the massive single day losses in the last year were dominantly B-24 squadrons (found unescorted) all from stern, with no discernable effect of concentrated bomber defensive firepower..

As to twice the bomb load? Check your numbers again. On the typical ETO/MTO missions of 500-700 mile radius the B-24 typically carried 500 to 1000 pound loads more than the B-17 - 10-16%. Important consideration - yes. Significant to destruction of pin point, precison targets? Probably not.

The B-24s moved away from the very close staggered combat box formations over time to line abreast for reasons of more difficulty in flying in close formation at high altitudes.

Does the above comparison make the B-17 superior? No but certainly Not the defective instrument of daylight precision bombing you wish to portray.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 17, 2012)

sometime ago somebody posted a graphs with statistical data on altitude of bombing over Germany some remember where is?

thanks


----------



## Siegfried (Jan 17, 2012)

RAF Bomber command treated bombing as a statistical process. They looked at figures such as ratio of bomb tonnage dropped per aircraft lost, in that regard the B-24 may have killed less crew than the 'safer' B-17 because it dropped more per mission. It also tended to bomb a little lower so, assuming a square law, it may have put a higher percentage of its higher tonnage on target. Working against these advantages are what may have been a higher loss rate. Although it flew lower it did fly a little faster. Furthermore it had far greater reach.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 17, 2012)

JohnC said:


> I laughed when I read the posts that have been written here. The B-s4 was not only a durable bomber in flight, it had many features that the B-17 did not have. For instance, German pilots would be wary attempting to fly into "the box" of B-24's due to the tailgunners range of movement in the B-24, which was much more capable than that of the B-17. .



Wow. What an arrogant first post. And utterly wrong.

January through May 1944 data (confidential) U.S. report "Attacks and Hits on B-17s and B-24s, Distribution According to Direction of Origin in Azimuth"

*B-17*
7 o'clock position - 8.9% of attacks resulting in 6.6% attack success rate (successful hits)
6 o'clock position - 20.7% of attacks resulting in 15.6% attack success rate (successful hits)
5 o'clock position - 9.2% of attacks resulting in 9.1% attack success rate (successful hits)

*B-24*
7 o'clock position - 11.0% of attacks resulting in 6.9% attack success rate (successful hits)
6 o'clock position - 19.6% of attacks resulting in 20.6% attack success rate (successful hits)
5 o'clock position - 7.7% of attacks resulting in 7.8% attack success rate (successful hits)

[Source: Gunner by Donald Nijboer, 2001]


----------



## mudpuppy (Jan 17, 2012)

JohnC; I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not just poking a stick at the hornets nest and really want to discuss the merits of these two American heavies. Reviving a two year old post and saying you'd "..laughed when I'd read the posts that had been written here" is quite rude and dismissive of the contributors in this post.
It looks like you've just joined the forum and this was your first post.....so if you are actually wishing to take part in the forum's discussions it would be good to dial down the attitude.
Regards,
Derek

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jimh (Jan 23, 2012)

On the tour we always debate which is best and which did the most work. So we did a cursory count of B-17 and B-24 units in Europe, both 15th and 8th. From our count we came up with 41 B-24 groups and 35 B-17 groups. Each group had four squadrons with an average of 10 planes per squadron. You can come to your own conclusions based on the math. Someday, when I retire, I will do a breakdown of sorties by group. B-24 bestweb was one of our sources. 

jim


----------



## drgondog (Jan 25, 2012)

Jim - a modest note when lumping B-24s and B-17s. 

In the 8th AF only two bomb groups flew combat missions from late October/November 1942 (93rd and 44th) to May 1943, when they were sent south to be joined by new 389th BG to practice low level mission against Ploesti. Between May and September all B-24s in 8th AF were in MTO. Net - for first year of 8th AF ops the B-24 comprised 25% 0f 8th AF total heavy BG strength - but only flew combat for 8th for six months of first year of ops. 

For period December 1943 through March 1943 the B-24s grew from 5 to 8 BG's of the total 28 BG's. 

By the EOW, 12 of 38. All the rest and approximately 70% of the sorties by 8th AF BC were by B-17s. By EOW the count was 26 BG's were B-17s, 13 BG's were B-24s but one of the B-24 (492nd) disbanded due to losses in two months of ops and converted to Carpetbagger.

The 12th/15th started out with B-17s then gradually transitioned to B-24s because most of the high value targets were slightly more suited to the B-24 range/payload combo.[/


----------



## drgondog (Jan 25, 2012)

I have had a difficult time extracting B-24/B-17 operational loss statistics by month/by type for ETO as a percentage of loss per sortie. Anybody have a link?

The ETO, because of the dominance of B-17 operations over B-24 as well as B-24s of 8th AF 'being out of theatre' from early May through early September 1943, missing Schweinfurt/Regensburg as well as being assigned as 'diversion' on October 14, 1943 certainly has the B-24 groups exposed far less to e/a when the LW achieved air superiority. OTOH, the three 8th AF BG B-24s did NOT escape Ploesti.


----------



## jimh (Jan 25, 2012)

Great points to all. Also remember Ploesti was bombed continually throughout the war. You would almost need a lifetime to disect all the data at the National Archive. There are literally thousands of records and photos that have not seen the light of day for 70 years. 

jim


----------



## drgondog (Jan 25, 2012)

jimh said:


> On the tour we always debate which is best and which did the most work. So we did a cursory count of B-17 and B-24 units in Europe, both 15th and 8th. From our count we came up with 41 B-24 groups and 35 B-17 groups. Each group had four squadrons with an average of 10 planes per squadron. You can come to your own conclusions based on the math. Someday, when I retire, I will do a breakdown of sorties by group. B-24 bestweb was one of our sources.
> 
> jim



Jim - the numbers you just put up just sank through my thick skull. If there were 41 B-24 BG's and 35 B-17 Groups in Europe, and 13/26 were in 8th AF - that means that the 15th AF had as many bombers as the 8th? 


Army Air Forces in World War II has for Jan 44 (28HBG -ETO, 13HBG -MTO; July44 (41HBG ETO, 21 MTO) Jan 45 (40HBG ETO, 21 MTO), Apr 45 (40HBG ETO, 19HBGMTO)

Net - In July 1944 through April 1945 there were more B-17 Bomb Groups (26) than all the B-17 and B-24 HBG combined in the MTO (21) so something was added incorrectly when your guys did a rough count between B-24 and B-17 numbers in Europe?


----------



## jimh (Jan 27, 2012)

yes...very very cursory. We obviously get alot of people who ask questions about where thier family members served and alot of times they don't even know which aircraft they served or served aboard. We keep an archive box that has a Map of Europe that includes both the MTO and ETO. On this map is the location of all 15th and 8th AF bomber groups by location and group number. The legend shows which aircraft served with what group. So we counted B-17 vs B-24 groups and groups that used both aircraft. This map is based on 1945 standings. Someday i will break it down by group activation date. Since both the 8th and 15th groups bombed Germany...and just about everywhere else it is only right to include both air forces. Hard to pin down a specific number without a ton of research.

jim


----------



## Milosh (Jan 27, 2012)

Army Air Forces Statistical Digest 

Tables 89 and 90 give the number of a/c on hand in the ETO and MTO.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 28, 2012)

Since the Tables aren't available

1944
ETO(B-17/B-24) - MTO(B-17/B-24)

Jan 1341/433 - 309/525
Feb 1412/553 - 289/588
Mar 1487/772 - 397/868
Apr 1492/1070 - 368/970
May 1502/1435 - 361/1049
Jun 1471/1458 - 315/982
Jul 1695/1609 - 316/985
Aug 1829/1606 - 366/1079
Sep 1927/1471 - 407/1190
Oct 2143/1330 - 476/1105
Nov 2123/1321 - 476/974
Dec 2168/1183 - 509/951

1945
ETO(B-17/B-24) - MTO(B-17/B-24)

Jan 2125/1077 - 538/987
Feb 2269/1066 - 521/1043
Mar 2367/1045 - 524/1136
Apr 2291/1041 - 497/1096
May 1988/719 - 529/811

Excluding May 1945 there was an average of:

ETO
B-17 - 1852 (61.6%)
B-24 - 1154 (38.4%)

MTO
B-17 - 416 (30%)
B-24 - 970 (70%)


----------



## Njaco (Jan 28, 2012)

I just watched an episode of "History Detectives" about a B-24 pilot. They made the claim that you were far more likely to survive being a Japanese kamakazie pilot than a B-24 pilot!!! Love to know how they came up with that.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 28, 2012)

I just finished a book called Blossoms in the Wind, interviews with surviving Kamikazi pilots, also Kiaten pilots.( manned torpedoes)

There were quite a bit more pilots recruited and trained for suicide missions than were ever used. I sure someone on here might come up with the numbers.


----------



## T Bolt (Jan 29, 2012)

Njaco said:


> I just watched an episode of "History Detectives" about a B-24 pilot. They made the claim that you were far more likely to survive being a Japanese kamakazie pilot than a B-24 pilot!!! Love to know how they came up with that.


My father flew B-24s in the 8th and 15th AF, and when he first joined the 8th in June '44 he said he was told he had a 50/50 chance of surviving his tour. It that was correct and it is also true that there were more Kamikaze pilots not used than used, then that claim could very well be true.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 29, 2012)

Milosh said:


> Since the Tables aren't available
> 
> 1944
> ETO(B-17/B-24) - MTO(B-17/B-24)
> ...



Milosh - great find. What about 42/43 when the B-17 dominated 8th AF and flew more than 80% of the sorties during the first 16 month? 

IIRC I once saw a statistic that B-17s flew almost 63% of all combined ETO/MTO sorties -

One reason I have looked at statistical loss rates with skepticism - namely the missions flown without long range esacort were dominantly 8th AF/ETO B-17s as the MTO had three fighter groups equipped with 38's one year before the 20th and 55th started in ETO and thus had fighter coverage on most missions.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 29, 2012)

1943
ETO(B-17/B-24) - MTO(B-17/B-24)

Jan 175/39 - 118/81
Feb 186/69 - 142/65
Mar 502/74 - 167/87
Apr 229/88 - 195/106
May 599/93 - 229/107
Jun 783/51 - 269/192
Jul 820/24 - 314/230
Aug 786/109 - 338/115
Sep 835/96 - 313/204
Oct 907/197 - 298/118
Nov 1166/294 - 268/115
Dec 1302/308 - 289/268


----------



## drgondog (Jan 29, 2012)

Milosh said:


> 1943
> ETO(B-17/B-24) - MTO(B-17/B-24)
> 
> Jan 175/39 - 118/81
> ...



Milosh - You can see how lopsided the B-17 to B-24 ratio was for the 8th through March 1944.

I wonder which B-24 BG's the count shows for B-24s from May though August when all the combat groups (44, 93 and 389) went to Africa for Tidal Wave. The last 8th AF B-24 combat sortie (bombing) was 39 out on May 17 and 34 effectives, then 22 effectives on 7 September after they returned - so none of the Mid May through August B-24 count for 8th AF was flying combat sorties in that period. 

It is conceivable some had arrived to start training for the ETO but I would have to check (392, 444, 446 and 448??)


----------



## Milosh (Jan 29, 2012)

Not sure how much this helps.

15th AIR FORCE ORGANIZATIONAL CHART AS OF OCTOBER 1944







Frank Ambrose, Gloversville, NY and 781st Bomb Sqd. 465th Bomb Group in Italy


----------



## jimh (Jan 30, 2012)

Thats a great tree Milosh...I'd love to see that for the 8th..1st, 2nd and 3rd air divisions.

jim


----------



## drgondog (Jan 30, 2012)

jimh said:


> Thats a great tree Milosh...I'd love to see that for the 8th..1st, 2nd and 3rd air divisions.
> 
> jim


Lol - Jim I can almost build that from memory..

Roger Freeman has a pretty good cut in the Mighty Eighth series.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 31, 2012)

Not what you are looking for Jim but I found it interesting,






Not a tree Jim as for the 15th AF, 8th AF

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jan 31, 2012)

Fold3 Viewer

Interesting link for modelers. Open the film strip and scrolling right will give you dimensions for the unit markings


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 6, 2016)

Dang...dead link Milosh, "Unexpected Error"


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 27, 2018)

SM79Sparviero said:


> If Consolidated had accepted to build the B17 under Boeing licence, at the place of the 20.261 Liberators built ( VS 12.700 B17s from Boeing) they could build the same number of Flying Fortresses


Digging through old threads, I came across this gem and couldn't resist throwing in my $.02.
This comment had to have come from someone who's never looked at these two aircraft up close and personal.
I'm an aircraft mechanic by training and have done my share of sheet metal work, and have also worked in a manufacturing plant (aircraft weapons, not airframes) and have some grasp of the processes involved. I'm convinced a plant capable of producing 20K Liberators could NOT turn around and crank out the same number of Fortresses in the same amount of time. Structurally, the Lib looks like it was designed for ease and speed of construction. The sheet metal parts are large and simple, with a minimum of fussy details, and the main spar is a simple sheet metal box. The Fort, on the other hand, comes from an earlier generation in the evolution of large all metal monoplanes, and is full of little complexities, forgings, castings and a built up main spar fabricated of heavy sheet metal box members riveted together to form a truss. Hell for stout, but not cheap, quick, or easy to build. I betcha the structural parts count for a B-17 airframe is near twice what it is for a 24. Those with GA experience can relate to this. The B-24 is built like a Cherokee/Saratoga/Seneca, the B-17 like a Beech 18.
I got the privilege of making these observations onederful day when Collings was in town, and I got to turn a wrench on both birds, and then ride in them both.
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## soulezoo (Sep 27, 2018)

Having wrenched on both myself (once on the Memphis Belle- movie version- helping put a wing back on) I have to agree with Wes above. I did not, however, get to ride in either.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 27, 2018)

soulezoo said:


> Having wrenched on both myself (once on the Memphis Belle- movie version- helping put a wing back on) I have to agree with Wes above. I did not, however, get to ride in either.


I lucked out, and was able to bail the Collings people out of a problem they they were having. They were on the phone trying to arrange an overnight parts delivery to a small local airport prior to 10AM when I came in from my morning UPS feeder flight. They were having no luck with FedEx or UPS, as neither could guarantee that timing. I had them address their package to me, UPS, care of the local FBO, and told them to meet me in BTV next morning at 0730. Next morning I spotted their package as I was loading my plane in MHT and strapped it into the empty copilot's seat. When I landed in BTV, there was a B-24 waiting for me on the ramp, and the UPS guys scanned my package and handed it to me on the spot. The Collings folks were on the phone negotiating for a mechanic to go over to the other field and install the part. I told them I was a mechanic and they asked if I wanted to go for a ride. Did I ever! So I got to install an oil distribution pump in the port landing gear well of the B-24 WHILE STILL IN MY PILOT UNIFORM. No grunge clothes to change into.
The only mechanic they had with them was their chief pilot, who was an AI, but he was stretched thin with crowd control, safety issues, lectures, and publicity stuff, and barely had time to inspect and sign off my work. I then participated in a daily inspection of the B-17, changed a couple lamps, and opened up a compartment to retrieve a ratchet wrench that somebody had lost at some previous time. By then it was time for them to takeoff for BTV, and I needed to get back for my evening UPS flight, so I rode back in the B-17 with "genuine Liberator blood" splattered on my uniform. One of the best days of my life.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## mcoffee (Sep 28, 2018)

Loss rate per sortie data for 8th AF B-17's and B-24's by Bomb Group. This is the work of Sam McGowan.

And a couple of photos of a "fragile" 15th AF B-24.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 28, 2018)

mcoffee said:


> And a couple of photos of a "fragile" 15th AF B-24.
> View attachment 511265
> View attachment 511266


Good thing that shell didn't hit 20 feet forward. The whole area above the wing center section is one huge fuel tank with the main spar running right through it.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 28, 2018)

Just went to the National WW2 Museum in NOLA yesterday. They had the nose section of an earlier B-24 but for the life of me I could not see how someone got to the gunner / bombardier position. Anyone have the answer?

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## mcoffee (Sep 28, 2018)

Normal entry was through the nose wheel well, but there was a tunnel under the flight deck to the bomb bay

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 28, 2018)

mcoffee said:


> Normal entry was through the nose wheel well, but there was a tunnel under the flight deck to the bomb bay



Great and thanks! There was nothing visible by looking in as to how someone got in. I would guess if he needed to bailout he would have to traverse the tunnel?

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Milosh (Sep 28, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> Great and thanks! There was nothing visible by looking in as to how someone got in. I would guess if he needed to bailout he would have to traverse the tunnel?
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Sep 28, 2018)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 28, 2018)

Are you still in Nola? Maybe be we can meet up for a beer.


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 29, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Are you still in Nola? Maybe be we can meet up for a beer.



DerAdler,

I left yesterday AM to fly to EWR then on to JAX. Great museum, really enjoyed it!

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 29, 2018)

Too bad. Would have loved to have bought you a beer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 29, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> DerAdler,
> 
> I left yesterday AM to fly to EWR then on to JAX. Great museum, really enjoyed it!
> 
> ...


Big Easy to the Sewr, just to get to Hickoryville? My condolences! Cruel and unusual is supposed to be unconstitutional. How does a single seater pilot stand it? I hardly ever fly anymore, as I detest cattlecars. And I don't fit in the seats.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 29, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Big Easy to the Sewr, just to get to Hickoryville? My condolences! Cruel and unusual is supposed to be unconstitutional. How does a single seater pilot stand it? I hardly ever fly anymore, as I detest cattlecars. And I don't fit in the seats.
> Cheers,
> Wes



I sit in 1R most of the time so the seat is comfortable along with a better than average view...

Post school back in session it’s much easier until the holidays!

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## muskeg13 (Oct 1, 2018)

Anyone else read "Unbroken" by Laura Hillenbrand, the the account of WW2 B-24 Bombardier Louie Zamperini. I can't locate my copy of the book right now, but I recall Zamperini and his crewmates were very unhappy being saddled with B-24s instead of B-17s. Zamperini thought the B-24 was an unsafe abomination and an absolute dog to fly in. I guess crashing due to mechanical failure while looking for another B-24 lost to mechanical failure, then being stranded 47 days at sea without food or water, followed by several very rough years in Japanese POW camps could influence your opinion of the B-24.


----------



## billrunnels (Oct 2, 2018)

Erich said:


> the Germans would not ignore the B-17's and go ater the B-24's. This is a typical Ww 2 US mythical statement. The Germans were vectored in and then up to the individual Staffelkapitäns as to which bomber pulk's would be selected for the attacks


This statement does reflect some truth. We B-17 Crew Members were glad to see B-24 Aircraft in the Bomber Stream.The only bomber I saw explode was a B-24 coming off his drop over Berlin. Bandits had been reported in the area prior to the explosion. Our P-51 escort dropped their wing tanks, can still see the gas spilling out as they tumbled down and headed that way. Were gone about 15 minutes and picked us up following our drop at Zossen. My heart went out for that Crew. All this at 24,500 ft.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## airminded88 (Oct 2, 2018)

billrunnels said:


> This statement does reflect some truth. We B-17 Crew Members were glad to see B-24 Aircraft in the Bomber Stream.The only bomber I saw explode was a B-24 coming off his drop over Berlin. Bandits had been reported in the area prior to the explosion. Our P-51 escort dropped their wing tanks, can still see the gas spilling out as they tumbled down and headed that way. Were gone about 15 minutes. My heart went out for that Crew.



Vivid account Bill, thanks for sharing it with us.
On such encounter, did you get to see the P-51s pound on the German fighters or did they got away?

Cheers


----------



## billrunnels (Oct 2, 2018)

airminded88 said:


> Vivid account Bill, thanks for sharing it with us.
> On such encounter, did you get to see the P-51s pound on the German fighters or did they got away?
> 
> Cheers


No I didn't see any encounter.


airminded88 said:


> Vivid account Bill, thanks for sharing it with us.
> On such encounter, did you get to see the P-51s pound on the German fighters or did they got away?
> 
> Cheers


No I didn't see any followup activity. We were approaching the IP for our South drop on Zossen German Headquarters located just South of Berlin. Were briefed for Berlin but target changed en route after receiving a report from the Underground that Hitler was to be there. As it turned out he was not.

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


----------



## billrunnels (Oct 2, 2018)

Graf said:


> From a General's point of view, yes, it would be smarter to produce more B24s than 17s. More bombload, longer range. On paper the war in Europe should be won far easier with the B24.
> 
> But as a crewman aboard either aircraft, the B17 was the mount of choice. More durable, more armament for your protection. And of course you have to throw in morale.
> 
> ...


And more Altitude over the Target.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Oct 4, 2018)

It seems to me that on balance, the B-24 was slightly inferior to the B-17 in the daylight bombing of Germany role. The B-24 was more versatile overall, and especially played a crucial role in closing the "Atlantic Gap" in the battle against U-Boats.

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


----------



## JDCAVE (Oct 4, 2018)

My Father flew one operation at the controls of a B-24 Liberator during a brief stint with RAF coastal command. He said it flew like a cow. His words, not mine. He also flew a tour of 31 operations on Canadian built Lancaster X's, which he said was the finest aircraft he had ever flown as it handled softly and beautifully with light touches on the controls, even with 14,000 lbs of bombs. Dad in KB865, March, 1945.







Jim

Reactions: Like Like:
8 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Big Jake (Oct 4, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Digging through old threads, I came across this gem and couldn't resist throwing in my $.02.
> This comment had to have come from someone who's never looked at these two aircraft up close and personal.
> I'm an aircraft mechanic by training and have done my share of sheet metal work, and have also worked in a manufacturing plant (aircraft weapons, not airframes) and have some grasp of the processes involved. I'm convinced a plant capable of producing 20K Liberators could NOT turn around and crank out the same number of Fortresses in the same amount of time. Structurally, the Lib looks like it was designed for ease and speed of construction. The sheet metal parts are large and simple, with a minimum of fussy details, and the main spar is a simple sheet metal box. The Fort, on the other hand, comes from an earlier generation in the evolution of large all metal monoplanes, and is full of little complexities, forgings, castings and a built up main spar fabricated of heavy sheet metal box members riveted together to form a truss. Hell for stout, but not cheap, quick, or easy to build. I betcha the structural parts count for a B-17 airframe is near twice what it is for a 24. Those with GA experience can relate to this. The B-24 is built like a Cherokee/Saratoga/Seneca, the B-17 like a Beech 18.
> I got the privilege of making these observations onederful day when Collings was in town, and I got to turn a wrench on both birds, and then ride in them both.
> ...



As a flight engineer on and a maintainer of a B-17, and also as a retired aircraft structural engineer who is also familiar with the B-24, I fully agree with Wes's comment regarding the difference in the two types' structure. The B-24 structure is indeed much simpler than the B-17 and thus much easier to produce. I partially agree with his comment that the B-24 is built like a Cherokee/Saratoga/Seneca and the B-17 like a Beech 18 - true for the B-24 (in a way...) but the B-17 is built like the Brooklyn Bridge.

Jake

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


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 5, 2018)

Big Jake said:


> the B-17 is built like the Brooklyn Bridge.


Aw, come on, Jake! A suspension bridge?? Like an Eindecker or a Deperdussin? How about the Bayonne Bridge instead? At least it's a truss structure, even if it is arched.
In mech school our airframes instructor led us through a discussion of rivet sizing and spacing, then sent us out to a Cherokee 6 on the ramp and asked us to measure and calculate what percentage it exceeded the FAA minimum requirements for rivet spacing. We were astounded to discover it exceeded minimums by zero percent! He looked at me (the only pilot in the class) and said: "Keep that in mind next time you're driving around in one of these things!".
BTW, welcome aboard the funny farm! Glad to have you with us. What B-17 are you on? Do you do engine work, or ship them out? What category airworthiness certificate does your Fort fly under?
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Barrett (Oct 8, 2018)

Ref. operational ceiling of the 17 v. 24. Reminds me that the RAFish chaps in Lancs, Halifaxes etc tended to cheer when they learnt that Stirlings were on the roster for Tonight's Mission. Reason being: the Air Ministry required that Shorts build the machine to fit the standard hangar, which limited wingspan, which limited wing area, which limited...well, you know.

Sidebar: I got to know Johannes Steinhoff tolerably well. He expressed no difference in discussing the 17 v. 24. I cited Jimmy Thach's wartime interview in which he said that if the GAF had adopted the USN overhead gunnery pass, daylight bombing would've ended in '43. JS agreed. he said the advantages were well known: bigger target to shoot at and semi-impossible to defend against. But the GAF lacked the fuel and resources to teach sufficient numbers of Jagdfliegern how to fly the pattern.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## airminded88 (Oct 9, 2018)

Barrett said:


> Ref. operational ceiling of the 17 v. 24. Reminds me that the RAFish chaps in Lancs, Halifaxes etc tended to cheer when they learnt that Stirlings were on the roster for Tonight's Mission. Reason being: the Air Ministry required that Shorts build the machine to fit the standard hangar, which limited wingspan, which limited wing area, which limited...well, you know.
> 
> Sidebar: I got to know Johannes Steinhoff tolerably well. He expressed no difference in discussing the 17 v. 24. I cited Jimmy Thach's wartime interview in which he said that *if the GAF had adopted the USN overhead gunnery pass, daylight bombing would've ended in '43*. JS agreed. he said the advantages were well known: bigger target to shoot at and semi-impossible to defend against. But the GAF lacked the fuel and resources to teach sufficient numbers of Jagdfliegern how to fly the pattern.



Hi Barret, could you point me towards some additional reading about such tactic. Thank you in advance.

Cheers


----------



## CAVU Mark (Nov 25, 2018)

I think there were some B-24s in England. Here are some. Ken was in England before the war started as a Consolidated tech rep and left after the war ended. These are pictures from his album.


----------



## muskeg13 (Nov 26, 2018)

More fuel for the fire...
*Army Air Forces in World War II
Vol. VI: Men and Planes 
Prepared Under the Editorship of 
Wesley Frank Craven Princeton University 
James Lea Cate University of Chicago*

*Chapter 6, AAF AIRCRAFT OF WORLD WAR II, pp.206-207
*

The B-17 and the B-24 inevitably invited comparison. Coming along four to five years after the B-17, the B-24 possessed an initial advantage. It carried a larger bomb load than the B-17 and could carry the load farther with a crew of the same size-ten men. Listed in the charts originally as having a range of 2,850 miles with a 2,500-pound bomb load, experience showed that it did have a longer reach than any other compering plane.53 It was this advantage that gave the B-24 the call over the B-17 for service in CBI and SWPA, where Kenney's Fifth Air Force used it for the 2,400-mile round trip attacks on Balikpapan in 1944,* and where regularly, if less spectacularly, it extended the coverage of overwater search. Against the German Air Force, however, combat experience showed the plane to be lacking in armament and armor. Attempts to remedy these and other short-comings increased the weight of the plane and altered flight characteristics in such a way as to render it less stable. Lt. Gen. James H. Doolittle, commanding the Eighth Air Force, made his preference for the B-17 clear in a letter of January 1945.54 By that date the increased range of the B- 17 some time since had robbed the B-24 of its chief advantage.55 Against the _Luftwaffe_, the capital enemy, the rugged and steady B-17 remained the natural pick.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 27, 2018)

muskeg13 said:


> Attempts to remedy these and other short-comings increased the weight of the plane and altered flight characteristics in such a way as to render it less stable.


In my five minutes in the right seat of the B-24, I never did get the dang thing trimmed up to hold altitude and heading hands off. And that was in single flight with nothing else around. Later that day, in the B-17, flying tandem (not formation) with the Lib, it trimmed up steady as a rock, and kept station easily. And the Fort didn't have a large fuel tank in the fuselage right behind your head to act as a bullet magnet. I know which one I'd rather take into harm's way!
A late neighbor of mine was a B-24 pilot based in N Africa, early days in the MTO. D model, no nose turret. He said holding a tight box formation with a loaded plane was a bitch, and dangerous to boot. Midairs were all too common. He threw out the protocol they were trained under of "pilot drives, copilot sits on his hands and keeps his mouth shut", and went to flying with both hands on the yoke and calling power commands to the copilot and flight engineer. He also gave both of them as much "stick time" as could safely be done. A no-no by stateside rules, but cheap insurance to his way of thinking. During his tour he had three copilots "graduate" and become aircraft commanders when scratch crews had to be put together. He said that was unheard of at the time, since the general scheme of things was that pilots were pilots and copilots were copilots, and that was that.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MakerDude (Jul 23, 2019)

With respect to the speed difference between the b-24 and b-17 I think I found one other factor - a but minor. The b-24 had PW R-1830, the b-17 Wright 1820's. According to specs both were turning out 1200 hp. However some differences between the 2. Note - figures are from Wikipedia so don't bet your life on them.
PW R-1830
*Diameter:* 48.03 in (1,220 mm)
*Dry weight:* 1,250 lb (567 kg)

Wright R-1820
*Diameter:* 54.25 in (1,378 mm)
*Dry weight:* 1,184 lb (537 kg)

The b-17 Wright's have a slight edge in weight, being 66 lbs lighter. However it is at a big disadvantage in diameter, 6.22 inches. This gives a frontal area increase of 27.5 percent, or 3.5 square feet per engine. I can't find data on the nacelle size, though I would expect it would be proportional to the engine. If we went by engines alone the b-17 has 3.5 x 4 = 14 square feet of drag the b-17 doesn't have for the same power.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 23, 2019)

MakerDude said:


> I can't find data on the nacelle size, though I would expect it would be proportional to the engine.


Don't forget, the B24 has cowl "cheeks" which house intercooler and oil cooler, so drag differences are not going to be directly proportional to engine diameters. Also, for most piston aircraft, INTERNAL cooling drag accounts for between 20 and 40℅ of total airframe drag. Air entering the B17 cowling flows around one set of cylinders and baffles and exits, whereas in the B24 it has to find its way through another set of cylinders and their associated baffles.
Now check out their fuselages. The B24J is an oval torpedo with only a windshield and two turrets to break the flow of air. The B17G has a chin turret, cheek guns, a (streamlined) doghouse type crew compartment, and various bumps and protrusions here and there. OTOH, the speeds you see on spec sheets aren't truly representative of combat conditions, as most missions were flown at grossly overloaded weights. Cruising at overload weight, with the resulting higher AOA, increases induced drag on the B24's Davis wing proportionally more than the B17's wider chord, more tapered wing. I think you'd find that the speed differential in combat use was less than the spec sheets would lead you to believe.
Having (briefly) flown both aircraft "hands on" (albeit at light weights), I can vouch for the B17 as a sweet and steady flyer, and the B24 as a nervous pig. The B24's narrow wing chord makes for a relatively narrow CG range, and I suspect we were loaded toward the aft limit, which tends to make any plane a little less steady.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 23, 2019)

Bombers are tough to figure.

as 
X
 XBe02Drvr
has already mentioned the engine nacelles/cowlings were different. 


B-24s had the intercooler in the engine nacelle with a big scoop on one side to feed it. the carb intake and oil cooler where on the other side. 
B-17s had the intercooler or at least the intakes in the wing leading edges along with the carb intakes and oil cooler intakes. 




Without knowing what the internal drag was for these air passages it is a bit tough to compare drag.


----------



## MakerDude (Jul 24, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Don't forget, the B24 has cowl "cheeks" which house intercooler and oil cooler, so drag differences are not going to be directly proportional to engine diameters. Also, for most piston aircraft, INTERNAL cooling drag accounts for between 20 and 40℅ of total airframe drag. Air entering the B17 cowling flows around one set of cylinders and baffles and exits, whereas in the B24 it has to find its way through another set of cylinders and their associated baffles.
> Now check out their fuselages. The B24J is an oval torpedo with only a windshield and two turrets to break the flow of air. The B17G has a chin turret, cheek guns, a (streamlined) doghouse type crew compartment, and various bumps and protrusions here and there. OTOH, the speeds you see on spec sheets aren't truly representative of combat conditions, as most missions were flown at grossly overloaded weights. Cruising at overload weight, with the resulting higher AOA, increases induced drag on the B24's Davis wing proportionally more than the B17's wider chord, more tapered wing. I think you'd find that the speed differential in combat use was less than the spec sheets would lead you to believe.
> Having (briefly) flown both aircraft "hands on" (albeit at light weights), I can vouch for the B17 as a sweet and steady flyer, and the B24 as a nervous pig. The B24's narrow wing chord makes for a relatively narrow CG range, and I suspect we were loaded toward the aft limit, which tends to make any plane a little less steady.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Good points!

One question I have, if anyone knows is - speeds, service ceiling are for when fully loaded. I wonder what b-17, b-24 did after they dropped their bombs. Both would be minus there bomb loads and half their fuel. Obviously you know want to get away as fast as you can.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2019)

In many cases the speed listed in most published specifications is for a "normal" gross weight. From Joe Baugher's site under B-17F
"34,000 pounds empty, *40,437 pounds loaded*, 56,500 pounds maximum. " 

Which makes nonsense out of the speed listings as the planes were normally flown. 
B-17s and B-24s over Europe did NOT run for home. Since part of their defence was the firepower of the large formation/s. stringing the formation out with each plane running at it's best speed was not going to happen. The faster you go the more fuel you burn per mile. Getting away from German fighters only to force land in North West France, Belgium, Holland or the English channel wasn't such a good plan either.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 25, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> B-17s and B-24s over Europe did NOT run for home.


Formation speed = best range speed of the oldest, tiredest, most beat up bomber in the box with four engines still turning and all gun positions manned. Three engine stragglers were on their own, as were planes so badly shot up they couldn't contribute much to defense of the box.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Aug 8, 2019)

I've always been curious-what limited the ceiling of the B-24 so much? Engine output was similar, both were turbocharged. Was it the airframe/wing design?

Another question-was the B-24 design geared more towards volume production than the '17? They cranked a lot out of Willow Run in a short period of time. I was under the impression that the assembly process was geared much more towards an automotive style production.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 9, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> Another question-was the B-24 design geared more towards volume production than the '17? They cranked a lot out of Willow Run in a short period of time. I was under the impression that the assembly process was geared much more towards an automotive style production.


Go back and read posts #168, 170, and 190 in this thread. You're right, the Liberator was a simpler plane to build, and slightly less damage tolerant than the Fort. (And a nervous pig in the air.)
The B24's Davis wing had a very pronounced drag rise with increasing AOA, which negatively affected its high altitude performance at heavy weights. It was designed to go faster at lower altitudes and weights and with less armament drag. At the fuel and bomb loads, the altitudes and the defensive firepower that ETO ops demanded, it just didn't take the overloads as gracefully as the B17.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 11, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The only mechanic they had with them was their chief pilot, who was an AI


AI = Aircraft Inspector?



Barrett said:


> Ref. operational ceiling of the 17 v. 24. Reminds me that the RAFish chaps in Lancs, Halifaxes etc tended to cheer when they learnt that Stirlings were on the roster for Tonight's Mission.


Which meant they were the easiest targets, basically...


> I cited Jimmy Thach's wartime interview in which he said that if the GAF had adopted the USN overhead gunnery pass, daylight bombing would've ended in '43. JS agreed. he said the advantages were well known: bigger target to shoot at and semi-impossible to defend against.


I've never heard of this tactic before: Why was it nearly impossible to defend against?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 11, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> AI = Aircraft Inspector?



Should be "IA"

Inspection Authorization

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 11, 2019)

https://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=338319.0


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 12, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> I've never heard of this tactic before: Why was it nearly impossible to defend against?


 14:06

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 12, 2019)

FLYBOYJ


1. The high-side approach looks a bit like an intercept profile the RAF was using either during the war or in the post war period. There was such a demo against B-29's. I don't remember seeing a turn-reversal in there which would have made the attack harder to stop, but it would get to the plane faster.

2. The overhead one looks particularly bad if it's head on... you have no warning he's going to pull it off because there's a remote possibility the gunner would see the plane overtaking them and getting in front. It'd still be difficult to shoot at as it comes on down from the rear too, but it'd be worse from the head-on. That said the prospect of being attacked a second time from the rear attack is not pleasant.


----------

