# As a crewman in the ETO, would you rather serve in a B-24 or a B-17?



## michaelmaltby (Jun 8, 2011)

More than anything, the B-24 Liberator reflects the sheer productivity of American industry in WW2. By the end, Ford was rolling one an hour off the Willow Run line.

Most-built American heavy bomber of WW2. More modern than the B-17.

Yet when I see photos of B-24's collapsing under fire it makes me sick. When I see photos of wrecked B-17's limping home to England missing tail pieces and wing sections it makes me very respectful of Boeing engineering, .

I _want_ to love the Lib. My uncle Arthur flew Lib's all over the world in Ferry Command out of Dorval, Quebec, after 1941. But they were pigs to fly in formation - their fuel efficient Davis Wing and slab-sided design being no friend of struggling box-formation flying pilots. And when they failed, they folded up like a cheap suit.

More modern than the B-17, yes; more manufacturable (perhaps), but was the B-24 really the right design for the ETO daylight campaigns? 

MM


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 8, 2011)

I like to have the best chance of personal survival.

The people buying the B-24s were concerned about performance more than crew survival. The commitment to the B-24 occurred before reports of battlefield damage comparisons with the B-17 accumulated. From a performance standpoint, both flight and bomb load, the B-24 was a better Bomber. Some missions would never have occurred, and been hindered without the B-24. Without the Liberator there would have been no Tidal Wave, and patrols over the Atlantic and Pacific would be seriously hindered. The Fortress was easier to fly and more rugged, both of which increased aircrew survival.

I have flown as a passenger in the CAF B-17 Sentimental Journey and the Collins Foundation B-24 Witchcraft. During the flights I was in every crew position other than the pilot seats, ball turret, and tail-gunner position in the B-17. Even though it was peace time with good preventative maintenance, with no bombs or heavy fuel load, the stories of fuel leaks in B-24s resulting in explosions did cross my mind once or twice. I felt much more secure in the B-17. Perhaps it was due to a life long indoctrination of how tough and reliable the B-17 was, but I think the layout of the aircraft also influenced the feeling. I am 5’11” 220lb and was amazed I fit into the tail and nose turrets of the B-24. Most of the crewman in WWII were considerably smaller in stature, but I guess with the flight suits they wore they were about the same in girth. In the turrets you are just hanging out there at the end of the plane with a fabulous view. These positions were the closest thing to the freedom of skydiving I have ever felt in an aircraft. If you’ve never done a free fall skydive, do it! 

It could be argued that the Liberator had a better gun defense than the Fortress due to the tail turrets, and nose turrets in later versions. A deceased family friend was a B-24 tail-gunner. He was about 5’7” tall. He flew some Ploesti missions. I have a piece of flak he picked up. It is about 1.5 inches long by 1” wide, and viciously jagged. You do not handle it carelessly. Flak not fighters was the real bomber destroyer. Now you know why I would want to be in an easy to fly and rugged B-17.


----------



## davebender (Jun 8, 2011)

The only factor which matters for heavy bomber crew as statistical odds for survival were rather low.


----------



## Readie (Jun 8, 2011)

davebender said:


> The only factor which matters for heavy bomber crew as statistical odds for survival were rather low.



I should coca...

Bomber Command crews also suffered an extremely high casualty rate: 55,573 killed out of a total of 125,000 aircrew (a 44.4% death rate), a further 8,403 were wounded in action and 9,838 became prisoners of war. This covered all Bomber Command operations including tactical support for ground operations and mining of sea lanes.[clarification needed. A Bomber Command crew member had a worse chance of survival than an infantry officer in World War I. By comparison, the US Eighth Air Force, which flew daylight raids over Europe, had 350,000 aircrew during the war, and suffered 26,000 killed and 23,000 POWs. Of the RAF Bomber Command personnel killed during the war, 72% were British, 18% were Canadian, 7% were Australian and 3% were New Zealanders.

Taking an example of 100 airmen:
55 killed on operations or died as result of wounds
three injured (in varying levels of severity) on operations or active service
12 taken prisoner of war (some injured)
two shot down and evaded capture
27 survived a tour of operations
In total 364,514 operational sorties were flown, 1,030,500 tons of bombs were dropped and 8,325 aircraft lost in action.

You would be better off in the infantry !
Cheers
John


----------



## Greyman (Jun 8, 2011)

I would think your position in each aircraft would matter more than the type of aircraft:

8th AF casualty survey (110 killed, 1007 wounded)

Bombardier - 196 (17.6 %)
Waist Gunner * - 233 (20.9 %)
Tail Gunner - 140 (12.5 %)
Navigator - 136 (12.2 %)
Radio Operator - 95 (8.5 %)
Top Gunner - 94 (8.4 %)
Pilot - 83 (7.4 %)
Co Pilot - 74 (6.6 %)
Ball Gunner - 6 (5.9 %)

* Keep in mind there's two gunners, so it skews the number a bit.


----------



## Readie (Jun 8, 2011)

Greyman said:


> I would think your position in each aircraft would matter more than the type of aircraft:
> 
> 8th AF casualty survey (110 killed, 1007 wounded)
> 
> ...



Humbling stats GM.
I have read somewhere that after a certain number of tours there was no mathematical chance of survival for bomber crews.
Cheers
John


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 8, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> By the end, Ford was rolling one an hour off the Willow Run line.


 If only Ford (USA) was rolling Merlins off the line like that! They had the info they needed from their Merlin production by Ford of Britain.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 9, 2011)

This quote from Gekho's Commonwealth AF thread on the Liberator, this morning: ".... To those who flew the "Lib" she was an absolutely reliable aircraft - mild mannered, if somewhat ponderous; stable to the point of being unmanoeuverable; reliable; dry in wet weather; quiet on the flight deck and unbearably noisy aft; a long, gymnastic trek from nose to tail turret while in flight; reliable; and much maligned by Lancaster crews who insisted on behaving like fighter types when in the presence of a lady."

For long over-water patrols, I guess that would be hard to complain about. 

MM


----------



## Readie (Jun 9, 2011)

The Liberator was also Churchill's personal choice of transport.
That says a lot
Cheers
John


----------



## renrich (Jun 9, 2011)

I am not sure that the B24 might not have gotten a bad rap undeservedly as far as survivability goes. As far as serving in one or the other, the B24 generally flew missions at lower altitudes than the B17 so it was a little more comfortable for the crew but the B24 would be more likely to be hit by AA fire at lower altitudes. I talked once to a B24 pilot and he said that they could lose altitude more quickly after unloading bombs in order to confuse AA gunners than the B17.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 9, 2011)

I recall reading that the B-24 required more physical effort from the pilots than a B-17 did to maintain formation.

I recall reading that the B-24's "Davis" wing was much more vulnerable to catastrophic damage than the B-17's wing.

I recall reading about B-24s flying with their bomb-bay doors slightly open to prevent the accumulation of fuel fumes from causing a catastrophic explosion.

I recall reading that bailing out of a B-24 was more difficult than a B-17 because of its layout.

Anyone else recall reading about these B-24 characteristics?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 9, 2011)

A good read:

Amazon.com: The Wild Blue: The Men and Boys Who Flew the B-24s Over Germany 1944-45 (9780743203395): Stephen E. Ambrose: Books

This is Steven Ambrose's book on Presidential hopeful George McGovern's wartime experiences flying B-24's out of Italy. It's been years since I read it and, as a Canadian I have no particular political biases for or aginst McGovern, but I recall that flying the B-24 was very much a muscle job, with box formation flying, and heavily loaded take-offs being white-knuckle affairs.

But, as Readie notes, the Lib was Churchill's choice for VIP transport -- that, I suspect, based on range capabilities and roominess. In solo long distance cruising the B-24 was probably quite serene.

MM


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 9, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> But, as Readie notes, the Lib was Churchill's choice for VIP transport -- that, I suspect, based on range capabilities and roominess. In solo long distance cruising the B-24 was probably quite serene.MM


 
Even with additional efforts for comfort, I doubt it was a serene experience unless you were asleep. It is a testament to the strength of the man that a man of Churchill's age and habits endured long distance flights in such a loud and uncomfortable aircraft. I am sure he would have preferred the comfort of a Boeing 314. I suspect availability, range and speed were the primary factors in the choice of aircraft for his travels.


----------



## Readie (Jun 9, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Even with additional efforts for comfort, I doubt it was a serene experience unless you were asleep. It is a testament to the strength of the man that a man of Churchill's age and habits endured long distance flights in such a loud and uncomfortable aircraft. I am sure he would have preferred the comfort of a Boeing 314. I suspect availability, range and speed were the primary factors in the choice of aircraft for his travels.



B24.NET - WWII B-24 Aircraft Photos
WW2 USAAF Consolidated B-24 Liberator heavy bomber - Moore Aircraft warbird aviation photograph pictures

The RAF used Liberators till 1968! That is one long lived aircraft.

Cheers
John


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 9, 2011)

".... The RAF used Liberators till 1968", not quite sure that's a fact, R . The Indian Airforce, for sure. I believe that's where the Canadian air museum got its Lib from.

MM


----------



## Readie (Jun 9, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... The RAF used Liberators till 1968", not quite sure that's a fact, R . The Indian Airforce, for sure. I believe that's where the Canadian air museum got its Lib from.
> 
> MM


 
I read it in the second link...The RAF still used Liberators until December 1968 when they were sold to the Indian Air Force.

I have found this... When India gained independence in 1947, 37 Liberators were resurrected and gave service until their retirement in 1968. It is from the Indian Air Force that the majority of the remaining B-24s owe their existence.

The answer...Consolidated B24L-20-FO Liberator airplane pictures aircraft photos - RAF Museums

*It was the Indians ex RAF Liberators that were retired in 1968 !!*

Never a dull moment eh
Cheers
John


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 9, 2011)

Did you find that Liberating?


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 9, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> Did you find that Liberating?



:


Us former colonists always confounding the Brits!


----------



## Readie (Jun 9, 2011)

:


Lighthunmust said:


> :
> 
> 
> Us former colonists always confounding the Brits!




That'll be me

You beat me to that pun too

Cheers
John


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 9, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> I like to have the best chance of personal survival.



Then you'd choose a B-24. 

Statistically, the B-24 had a slightly lower loss rate than the B-17 over Europe. Part of this is related to the fact that the B-17s flew the majority of missions in 1943, when loss rates were higher.

A B-24 was more likely to be lost if it was hit, and less able to survive damage, but it flew slightly faster and slightly higher than the B-17, so was less likely to be damaged overall.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 9, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> I recall reading that the B-24 required more physical effort from the pilots than a B-17 did to maintain formation.
> 
> I recall reading that the B-24's "Davis" wing was much more vulnerable to catastrophic damage than the B-17's wing.
> 
> ...


 
I've read the exact same things and therefore my vote goes with the Fortress.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 9, 2011)

Jabberwocky said:


> Then you'd choose a B-24.
> 
> Statistically, the B-24 had a slightly lower loss rate than the B-17 over Europe. Part of this is related to the fact that the B-17s flew the majority of missions in 1943, when loss rates were higher.
> 
> A B-24 was more likely to be lost if it was hit, and less able to survive damage, but it flew slightly faster and slightly higher than the B-17, so was less likely to be damaged overall.



Come on! You are talking apples and oranges. Put the B-24s on the majority of the 1943 missions you mention and then tell me the statistics for survival! Yes the B-24 flew faster, higher, and you forgot with more bomb capacity than the B-17. That must be the reason for it flying too fast for the predicted flak boxes the German gunners set up, and it was higher than the German gunners could shoot. I always knew my friend Bob was lying about the piece of flak he gave me. I was so stupid to believe him when he told me he picked it up from the floor of his B-24 on the way back from Ploesti. I suppose that fist size scar in his chest was also a lie when he said it was from flak. I'm so gullible!


----------



## parsifal (Jun 10, 2011)

I am no expert on either machine, but I believe the B-24 flew higher, and faster, and carried a greater bombload than the B-17. You do not need to go any further than that to determine which bird was the less lethal to its crews. The B-24 is the safer ride, not from an individual aircrewmans POV, but from a force survivability POV. 

Part of the problem was the maximum effective ceiling of the German flak batteries. About 85% of the flak park was 88mm, and this gun had a maximum effective ceiling of about 24K. As 1943 and 1944 wore on, this indicative figure steadily declined, as barrel wear began to have significant effect on the entire gun park (and the germans just couldnt produce enough replacement barrels to fix the problem). By the end of 1944, the maximum effective ceiling of the flak park was down to about 21K, and this meant that both types could fly above the flak ceiling. before that however, the B-17 flew lower, which meant that it was subject to the attentions of each individual gun for longer, and therefore at greater risk. Flying slower made it even more exposed, and flying with a lower bombload meant that more of them had to pass over the same point to deliver the same amount of ordinance onto the target. 

The b-17 might be the sentimental favourite, it might be more pleasant to fly, it might be easier and more forgiving to fly, it might be more fun to fly, but it was a design 10 years older, and in the end this showed in the ability of the design to be "stretched" to meet the operational requirements of the 1944-5 environment that the USAAC found itself confronted with.

This might not be met with a great deal of joy, but it seems to me to be the cold hard realities when comparing the two types....speed, payload ceiling....the most important ingredients into survivability. There are only a couple of others...accuracy, defensive armament, strength of construction. Perhaps these altered the equation, but if so, I'm not aware of them.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 10, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Come on! You are talking apples and oranges. Put the B-24s on the majority of the 1943 missions you mention and then tell me the statistics for survival! Yes the B-24 flew faster, higher, and you forgot with more bomb capacity than the B-17. That must be the reason for it flying too fast for the predicted flak boxes the German gunners set up, and it was higher than the German gunners could shoot. I always knew my friend Bob was lying about the piece of flak he gave me. I was so stupid to believe him when he told me he picked it up from the floor of his B-24 on the way back from Ploesti. I suppose that fist size scar in his chest was also a lie when he said it was from flak. I'm so gullible!


 
Well, pardon me for attempting to provide an accurate answer, without any snark.

8th AF heavy bomber combat loss rates: 1.50% per sortie

B-17: 1.64% per sortie.
B-24: 1.21% per sortie.

~25% difference

For bomber groups that arrived in theater after December 1943:

B-17: 1.42% per sortie.
B-24: 1.11% per sortie.

~22% difference

(From 'B-17 Flying Fortress' by HP Willmott)

The B-17 actually had a higher ceiling than the B-24 and was more stable at altitude and easier to fly (helping bombing effectiveness). However, the B-24s carried more fuel and could afford to burn a bit more to climb to higher altitudes, where they flew faster. 

The clincher for me is the B-24's higher cruise speed, on the order of 15-30 mph better depending on sub-type and specific altitudes. This may not seem much, but on an 1000-1200 mile round trip mission, a B-24 formation spent might spend 45 minutes to an hour less time in the air. 

That means less time over enemy territory, in the range of flak and fighters. If I had the choice, I'd rather reduce my chances to be hit at all than have a better chance of survival after heavy damage.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 10, 2011)

You both make excellent points. I will reevaluate my opinion. Was not some of the lower altitude flying on B-17 missions based on leadership decision rather than necessity? 


Jabberwocky,

I apologize for the "snark". It was more intended as a friendly razz. I'll attempt to remember that inflection and body language don't transmit well in print. Last night I apparently upset people on another topic also so I'll be more careful crafting my communications. Apologies to all.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 10, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> You both make excellent points. I will reevaluate my opinion. Was not some of the lower altitude flying on B-17 missions based on leadership decision rather than necessity?
> 
> 
> Jabberwocky,
> ...



Typically using "unfriendly" language ending with lots of these ! and  doesn't come across well.


----------



## Readie (Jun 10, 2011)

I'd rather be in a Lancaster chaps.
Cheers
John


----------



## Timppa (Jun 11, 2011)

Willi Reschke ("Jadgeschwader 301/302 "Wilde Sau") wrote:

"It was a fact that German fighter pilots would rather attack a Liberator than a Flying Fortress. As a rule, one well executed attack was sufficient to cause a B-24 to go down, but that was not always the case with a B-17. Two attacks were often required to down a B-17, and there were cases when a German pilot expended all his ammunition on a B-17 with no apparent effect."


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 11, 2011)

> Lighthunmust said:
> 
> 
> > You both make excellent points. I will reevaluate my opinion. Was not some of the lower altitude flying on B-17 missions based on leadership decision rather than necessity?
> ...


----------



## parsifal (Jun 11, 2011)

I would also concede that in my opinion the placement and arcs of the defensive armamant was superior in the B-17 From what Timmpa is saying,it might be that structurally the b-17 was better, so perhaps the equation is not as neat as I assumed. Still, the range to payload is a worthwhile issue, and as Jabberwocky points out, the loss rates speak for themselves.

It probably will need a lot more looking at.......


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 11, 2011)

parsifal said:


> I would also concede that in my opinion the placement and arcs of the defensive armamant was superior in the B-17 From what Timmpa is saying,it might be that structurally the b-17 was better, so perhaps the equation is not as neat as I assumed. Still, the range to payload is a worthwhile issue, and as Jabberwocky points out, the loss rates speak for themselves.
> 
> It probably will need a lot more looking at.......


 
I just wonder about those loss percentage rates. It is not because I believe Jabberwocky is distorting the truth. I think it was Mark Twain who when commenting about how people can misunderstand reality used the phrase "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics". With the other controversy about data sources I discovered in the thread I started about Criteria for determining the best piston engine fighter still in my mind; I really would like to know the methodology used before accepting any statistics. It is so easy to make comparisons, that because of variables not considered, are really invalid. I have known for years that the B-24 was faster, longer ranged, and heavier lifting than the B-17. It is my understanding that those factors and Henry Ford's belief it could be produced rapidly in large numbers are why it became most used U.S. bomber. One of my 8th grade (age 13) book reports was on "Ploesti" by Dugan and Stewart. It was the first time I became of the inability of B-17s to do what B-24s could. From age 8 until he passed away when I was 19 we had a family friend who was a B-24 tailgunner that told me stories about the B-24. He did not have experience in combat as a B-17 crewman, but personally believed it was a safer aircraft. It will probably be difficult to determine, but I'll take a look in a couple of books I have to see if those loss percentage rates withstand scrutiny of the methodology used to calculate them. It would not be the first or last time numbers were complied that appeared to provide a simple, easy to understand, and reasonable explanation that is completely wrong.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 11, 2011)

*Breeding*

The B-17 morphed into the B-29 - B-50 - B-47 - B-52 ...

The B-24 morphed into the PB4 Privateer (longer, blisters, single tail). The next bomber Consolidated built was the B-36 - no resemblance to the B-24. Then the Huster. B-58. Each of these if a one-off.

As a *commercial* freighter - the Liberator Express was not beloved by those who flew and serviced her. Arguably, the Lancaster served longer and adapted better than either the B-17 or B-24.

MM


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 11, 2011)

Would transferring into the Medium's and getting on a B-25 be any safer?


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 11, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> Would transferring into the Medium's and getting on a B-25 be any safer?


 
It is my understanding the safest American bomber for crews in combat based on statistics was the B-26 Marauder after the wing fix. But as I wrote earlier there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics". I do recall an early B-26 mission over Europe that every aircraft was shot down. The Smithsonian has the fuselage of the B-26 "Flak Bait" on display, if I recall correctly it was renowned for its ability to survive combat.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 11, 2011)

I think this statement needs a little looking at.

" As a rule, one well executed attack was sufficient to cause a B-24 to go down, but that was not always the case with a B-17. Two attacks were often required to down a B-17, and there were cases when a German pilot expended all his ammunition on a B-17 with no apparent effect." 

A Bf 109 has 33 seconds of firing time for it's 7.9mm mgs, 22 seconds of firing time for the 13 mm mgs. 16 seconds of firing time for a 20mm Mg 151/20 with 200rounds and 12 seconds for 150 rounds. With the 30mm MK 108 firng time could down to 6-7 seconds. A Fw 190 has at least as long firing times for the wing root MG 151/20s.

Now there may have been Luftwaffe pilots who maintained a firing position on a B-17 long enough to empty their guns, or they were able to circle around on a cripple, or perhaps they didn't start with full ammo but the number of times this happened can't have been a large number. Not if the attacking fighter was actually in effective range. Not that the B-17 might not be able to absorb an fair amount of damage but the idea of a single fighter being able to execute multiple attacks until it's ammo was gone against a SINGLE B-17 in a formation is pretty remote. Likewise even chasing a cripple out of formation, being able to get or keep a firing position long enough (or repeatedly) to empty a full ammunition load seems a little difficult. Spraying rounds at a B-17 from 500-1000meters away is entirely possible but in such a circumstance it would be little wonder that no effect was seen. There is a big difference between a "well executed attack" and emptying the guns from too far away. I am not belittling the German pilots. When the British were conducting tests they asked the pilots to open fire at 300yds. the actual range the pilots fired at was 800-1200yds. With such errors (in all air forces) it is little wonder that some pilots reports speak of enemy aircraft taking large amounts of gun fire to no effect.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 11, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> *Breeding*
> 
> The B-17 morphed into the B-29 - B-50 - B-47 - B-52 ...
> 
> ...


 
At Falcon Field in Mesa, Arizona in the 1960's and 1970's they converted aircraft to fire bombers. There were alot of B-17s, I think one or two PB4-2 Privateers and no B-24s. That may or may not be evidence of the B-24 not being considered a good aircraft for flying close to things you can crash into (the ground, other planes in a combat box) during turbulent flight conditions (updrafts from fires,flak bursts,propwash other aircraft in formation). By the way many pilots for the RAF were trained at Falcon.



Shortround6 said:


> I think this statement needs a little looking at.
> 
> " As a rule, one well executed attack was sufficient to cause a B-24 to go down, but that was not always the case with a B-17. Two attacks were often required to down a B-17, and there were cases when a German pilot expended all his ammunition on a B-17 with no apparent effect."
> 
> ...



A very valid point. From my own experience in the Army and as a competitive shooter I have observed a great amount of range estimation errors and very fast and heavy firing without result. However, something caused this pilot to have this opinion of the B-17 and B-24. It may be just hyperbole for attention, a fading and inaccurate memory, or any number of reasons for opinion. One of those reasons could be that of the few firing pass opportunities available, the B-24 went down more often than the B-17.

From Roger A. Freeman’s “The Mighty Eighth” -

“Despite the decided Command (8th AF) preference for B-17s from the Spring of 1944 onwards, the B-24s led the two divisions in bombing accuracy average for the last four months of the war.”

Why would 8th Air Force command prefer slower, lower, lighter bomb loaded B-17s instead of faster, higher, heavier bomb loaded, supposedly statistically safer B-24s after months of combat with both? What did the leaders of the 8th know that our posted statistics do not reveal? Could it be that aircrew and their leaders place personal survival at a higher priority than mechanical efficiency?


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 12, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Why would 8th Air Force command prefer slower, lower, lighter bomb loaded B-17s instead of faster, higher, heavier bomb loaded, supposedly statistically safer B-24s after months of combat with both? What did the leaders of the 8th know that our posted statistics do not reveal? Could it be that aircrew and their leaders place personal survival at a higher priority than mechanical efficiency?


Accuracy


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 12, 2011)

*The Davis Wing*

Just as surely as the P-39 Aircobra was designed around the big 37 Oldsmobile nose canon, the Consolidated's Reuben Fleet's B-24 was designed around Mr. Davis' magic super-efficient cruising wing - Reuben bought into the wing design for the Corregidor flying boat - but only a few were built and certainly not enough to 'prove' the technology.

When asked to license-build B-17's, Consolidated responded with the B-24 proposal - characterized by that slender, shoulder-height Davis wing. I maintain that this design structure (wing type [Davis] + wing position [shoulder]) is inherently weaker for a bomber designed to carry internal stores, than the more conventional B-17 airfoil. But of course all this is mute  because the arrival of the gas turbine engine motivates a complete re-thinking of wing design (think Avro Vulcan, think B-52).

The wing-fuselage C.O.G of an aircraft has to be its strongest single point. The design of the B-24 seems to be 'hung' from where the slender Davis wing meets the fuselage - at the Bomb Bays - a single girder [cat-walk] spanning the bomb bay. The crew entered through the "roll up" bomb bay doors - turned left for the tail, turned right for the nose compartment. They called Libs "boxcars" and they were but not in a good sense - the Fairchild Flying Boxcar of Korea fame - is boxcar in a good sense  very strong, the squat fuselage "hung" from a strong, conventional wing.

So I contend that the use of the Davis wing in the design of the B-24 was the starting point for a number of design decisions that were predicated on the initial choice of wing. And that particular wing may have neen THE PERFECT DESIGN for the Corregedor flying boat - cruising solo the vast spaces of the Pacific. BUT to utilize that wing for a heavy bomber that would be required to fly tight box formations was a serious mistake.

But man-oh-man, when Ford got Willow Run rolling - they _built_ 'em. And fed components to Tulsa and San Diego factories.

MM

".... when Ford got Willow Run rolling - they built 'em. And fed components to Tulsa and San Diego factories."

Using purpose-built twin-engine (side-by-side), twin-transmission beauties - like these ..... .

MM

Delivered so .....


----------



## Readie (Jun 12, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> *
> 
> Arguably, the Lancaster served longer and adapted better than either the B-17 or B-24.
> 
> MM*


*

No argument MM, The Lancaster was a better and more versatile aircraft than its American counterparts.
Facts are facts chaps but, most Americans will not accept that the British built a better bomber.
Cheers
John*


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 12, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... when Ford got Willow Run rolling - they built 'em. And fed components to Tulsa and San Diego factories."
> 
> Using purpose-built twin-engine (side-by-side), twin-transmission beauties - like these ..... .
> 
> MM


 
Very cool!



Readie said:


> No argument MM, The Lancaster was a better and more versatile aircraft than its American counterparts.
> Facts are facts chaps but, most Americans will not accept that the British built a better bomber.
> Cheers
> John


 
I am inclined to agree with regard to capability, but not for daylight bombing unless surrounded by even more Mustangs than were with the 17's and 24's. Without massive escort I think the loses would vastly exceed those Bomber Command experienced at night. Those were bad enough as it was. Probably also need to reduce bomb load to provide more crew and coolant system protection from flak and fighters. Also ensure one of the crew was also a qualified pilot because of the added fatigue factor of formation flying, and head-on attacks intended to kill the pilots. Maybe throw on a ball turret since daylight makes playing Jazz Music even easier. Oh my God what have I done! I've reduced the bomb load and performance of the Lancaster to a B-24. Sorry John.

I think the Lancaster is magnificent and beautiful. From what I have heard it was compared to 17s and 24s a much easier plane for one pilot to fly. It was certainly a better choice for Bomber Command than a Fortress or Liberator. It also could accomplish missions no 17 or 24 could ever have attempted.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 12, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> Accuracy




You may be right. I haven't found anything else on accuracy other than the sentence that follows the first quote for "The Mighty Eighth" I posted.

"The performance (referring to accuracy) of individual groups, however was influenced to a large degree by how they fared with German fighters and flak; the best records were those of units who had a comparatively untroubled passage - although all had their bad times".

This sentence also makes me question the methodology of the loss percentages that were posted by Jabberwocky. I wonder if the methodology weighed the factors of numbers of each type, targets, and chronology and location of LW defense strength. The greater number of Liberators on a greater number of milk runs would skew the percentages. Perhaps percentages of Liberator lose depended on their being more Liberators to choose for targets and more less dangerous missions. If there were an equal number of B-17s flying the exact same missions the numbers may be very different. I still want to be on a B-17 if attacked.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 12, 2011)

".... most Americans will not accept that the British built a better bomber." 

On long over-water hauls, the Lib would be a much more 'luxurious' plane to fly than the Lanc. There's 2 questions: better plane?, and, better bomber? 

I would not want to fly Lancs on daylight missions against air defense. But they brought their crews back from nights ops the way B-17's did from daylight runs.

MM


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 12, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... most Americans will not accept that the British built a better bomber."
> 
> On long over-water hauls, the Lib would be a much more 'luxurious' plane to fly than the Lanc. There's 2 questions: better plane?, and, better bomber?
> 
> ...


 
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but why do you think the B-24 would be more luxurious than the Lanc. Is it because of internal spaciousness or is it because of flight characteristics? It is my understanding the Lanc was a sweet ride that was easy to fly. I know in my two short fights in a B-17 and B-24 the radio compartment of the B-17 was the most comfortable area. BTW I am an American who accepts the British made a bomber that all things considered was equal to and possibly superior to the B-17 and B-24.


----------



## Readie (Jun 12, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> BTW I am an American who accepts the British made a bomber that all things considered was equal to and possibly superior to the B-17 and B-24.



Thank you Steve, refreshing honesty. I have made my case for the Lancaster on other threads and its claim to fame lies in its versatility.

An important feature of the Lancaster was its extensive bomb bay, at 33 ft (10.05 m) long. Initially, the heaviest bombs carried were 4,000 lb "Cookies". Bulged doors were added to 30% of B-MkIs to allow the aircraft to carry 8,000 lb and later 12,000 lb "Cookies".
The 'Bouncing bombs' were also delivered with accuracy.
Towards the end of the war, attacking special and hardened targets, the B I Specials could carry the 21 ft long 12,000 lb "Tallboy" or 25.5 ft long 22,000 lb "Grand Slam" "earthquake" bombs: the Lancaster was able to deliver the heaviest bombs made. 

Lancasters flew 156,000 sorties and dropped 608,612 long tons (618,378 tonnes) of bombs between 1942 and 1945. Just 35 Lancasters completed more than 100 successful operations each, and 3,249 were lost in action. 

The most successful survivor completed 139 operations, and was scrapped in 1947. This, gentlemen, is the bomber I would choose.

Cheers
John


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 12, 2011)

".... but why do you think the B-24 would be more luxurious than the Lanc."

My uncle's view (as a Canadian former WW1 pilot and civilian Ferry Cmd pilot) was that British cockpits compared to American cockpits were "spartan" to say the least. He flew Libs, B-25's, PBY Catalinas, Ansons in his civilian role.

I don't doubt that the Lanc was a sweet machine to fly - powerful, strong and responsive [like the Spitfire]. But - on the flights across the South Atlantic to Africa ... the Lib was spacious and easy for pilots to swap chairs ...

The Lanc, on the otherhand, is like this:


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 12, 2011)

B-24 flight deck view:


----------



## evangilder (Jun 12, 2011)

I think the biggest vulnerability of the Liberator was the Davis Wing. While efficient for flying, it was prone to fold up with a good flak hit. They also were very persnickety when landing on grass fields. The nose gear was pretty fragile. That being said, the roll up bomb bay doors cold be punched through with the bombs in the event of a bomb bay door failure (and it did happen on occasion). 

The B-17 is legendary for it's survivability. Even during its initial testing, the pilot got into a storm cloud that flipped the bomber on it's back (inverted!). It got home safely. 

The B-24 flew higher, faster and with more of a bombload. They also built more of them. I personally would not have wanted to be a bomber crewman, of any position. Their losses were way to high.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 12, 2011)

I can't find the information right off, but I can remember reading years ago that the Lancaster had a pretty bad survival rate. Not because of any structual weakness, or flight problems, but because of the difficulty of bailing out of any damaged aircraft at night was made even worse because one of the escape hatches was undersized and made emergency exits even more difficult. Is there any truth to that ?


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 12, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... but why do you think the B-24 would be more luxurious than the Lanc."
> 
> My uncle's view (as a Canadian former WW1 pilot and civilian Ferry Cmd pilot) was that British cockpits compared to American cockpits were "spartan" to say the least. He flew Libs, B-25's, PBY Catalinas, Ansons in his civilian role.
> 
> ...


 


michaelmaltby said:


> B-24 flight deck view:


 
I understand your point of view now. Great Photos MM. Thanks!

I only have one book on the Lancaster, "Avro Lancaster, The Definitive Record" 2nd edition, by Harry Holmes. Does anyone have a recommendation for something better or that would address things about the Lanc this book doesn't?

Reactions: Old Old:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Readie (Jun 13, 2011)

Such luxury in the American cabin. 
Nevertheless, the Lancaster could still carry a greater bomb load than any American bomber and that is more important surely...

Weaknesses? The lack of a belly gun and its big fuel tanks in both wings the lack of armour protecting it.

RAF History - Bomber Command 60th Anniversary

I'd like to say that the RAF had learnt its lesson but,the RAF still has the same problem today when the RAF C-130 Hercules was shot down by small arm fire to a fuel tank in 2007.

Cheers
John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2011)

Readie said:


> Such luxury in the American cabin.
> Nevertheless, the Lancaster could still carry a greater bomb load than any American bomber and that is more important surely...



Not more than the B-29...


----------



## Readie (Jun 13, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Not more than the B-29...



We have had this discussion before 
You know I mean the size of bombs that I referred to in my earlier post.
The B29 was a great bomber, but in WW2 the Lancaster did more.
Cheers
John


----------



## renrich (Jun 13, 2011)

People keep saying the B24 flew higher than the B17. I strongly question that. I looked on a website about a bomb group that flew B24s and if memory serves, the highest altitude a mission was flown at was 25000 feet and a good many were flown below 20000 feet. On a B17 website, quite a few missions were flown at 28-29000 feet. I also remember reading a book where when mixed missions were flown, the B24s always flew lower than the B17s The B17 had a service ceiling of 35000 feet and the B24, 28000 feet. My belief is that those service ceilings were established with a normal load. In an overload situation which was probably most of the time, neither plane could get near that service ceiling. That meant that a B24 was really beginning to labor at and maybe could not even get to 25-26000 feet. I also read that the B24 and B17 were not very compatible when flying on the same mission because of those different altitude capabilites and different crusing speeds. The B24 cruised faster, I think.

Swinging away from the stated subject, It would seem to me that especially the B17 would be much more survivable in a daylight bombing mission against both flak and fighters than a Lancaster because of several factors. The B17 was slightly faster. The B17 could get a lot higher where the flak and fighters would have more problems getting to it. The B17 carried much heavier defensive armament. The B17's engines were much more damage resistant. Lastly, the B17 carried a co pilot where if the pilot was disabled the co pilot took over. Most Lancasters carried only one pilot although in some cases the engineer could perhaps nurse the plane home.


----------



## Readie (Jun 13, 2011)

Why did the USAAF choose to fly during daylight?
I have never really understood that choice.
Was it supreme belief in the Flying Fortresses?
Cheers
John


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jun 13, 2011)

Readie said:


> Why did the USAAF choose to fly during daylight?
> I have never really understood that choice.
> Was it supreme belief in the Flying Fortresses?
> Cheers
> John


 
purely the fact the the c&c of the USAAF 8th airforce believed all B-17 crews were expendable.
if they didn't knock out the German Steel Fuel/Oil depots, the US would lose the airwar.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 13, 2011)

The stated purpose of the 8th AF was precision bombing, it's hard enough to do that in daytime . The state of the art at the time made precision bombing at night more or less area bombing.

Anyone who has been in the military in wartime realizes their life is expendable, the mission comes first. You just hope if your time comes, it's worthwhile.


----------



## renrich (Jun 13, 2011)

Well, it was called daylight precision bombing. The AAF believed with the Norden Bombsight and in daylight they could really bomb accurately which was true, under perfect conditions! However, perfect conditions were seldom seen in the ETO. I guess then that the strategy was to have the RAF bomb at night with area type accuracy and the AAF be a little more precise in the daylight and not give the Germans much time to recuperate. An interesting point is that in the 30s, the Army Air Corps developed the notion that the heavy bomber could defend the US and her overseas bases by bombing an invading navy. Thus, all the B17s sent to the Philipines. Of course many of the B17s were caught on the ground and never got to bomb the ships but finally it was learned that high flying bombers were almost useless against even troopships, much less warships. Initially the headines gave much of the credit for the Midway victory to the AAF. The reality was that the B17s hit exactly nothing.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 13, 2011)

Was the B-24 the effective USAAF bomber for the Ploesti oil strikes? Besides range - what did it have going for it? - it can't have been intuitive to fly at those low altitudes. Would the B-17 have been a better low altitude platform - even if that meant a very small payload and more gas in bladders?

MM


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 13, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> Was the B-24 the effective USAAF bomber for the Ploesti oil strikes? Besides range - what did it have going for it? - it can't have been intuitive to fly at those low altitudes. Would the B-17 have been a better low altitude platform - even if that meant a very small payload and more gas in bladders?
> 
> MM


 They also tried it with P-38's.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 13, 2011)

renrich said:


> People keep saying the B24 flew higher than the B17. I strongly question that. I looked on a website about a bomb group that flew B24s and if memory serves, the highest altitude a mission was flown at was 25000 feet and a good many were flown below 20000 feet. On a B17 website, quite a few missions were flown at 28-29000 feet. I also remember reading a book where when mixed missions were flown, the B24s always flew lower than the B17s The B17 had a service ceiling of 35000 feet and the B24, 28000 feet. My belief is that those service ceilings were established with a normal load. In an overload situation which was probably most of the time, neither plane could get near that service ceiling. That meant that a B24 was really beginning to labor at and maybe could not even get to 25-26000 feet. I also read that the B24 and B17 were not very compatible when flying on the same mission because of those different altitude capabilites and different crusing speeds. The B24 cruised faster, I think.


 
On combined B-17/B-24 groups, the B-24s indeed did fly lower, usually by several thousand feet. B-24s were also limited to the B-17's cruising speed. 

B-17 crews called B-24s their "best escort" when operating in mixed group formations. The B-24s suffered more from flak, as they were generally easier targets. They were also more prone to suffering the predilections of FW-190s rather than Bf 109s. The 190s were an order of magnitude more effective against bombers than the 109s.

When B-24s operated in single type formations, the could fly higher and faster, making the job of flak and interceptors more dangerous.


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jun 13, 2011)

Jabberwocky said:


> The 190s were an order of magnitude more effective against bombers than the 109s.



I wouldn't call that an accurate statement.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 13, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> Was the B-24 the effective USAAF bomber for the Ploesti oil strikes? Besides range - what did it have going for it? - it can't have been intuitive to fly at those low altitudes. Would the B-17 have been a better low altitude platform - even if that meant a very small payload and more gas in bladders?
> 
> MM



Ploesti was bombed several times. The second USAAF mission "Operation Tidal Wave" on August 1, 1943 flown from North Africa is the most famous. The B-24 was chosen because of range and payload capability. I am not sure but I think the mission was beyond the capability of the B-17 or beyond it's capability to be effective. The losses for Tidal Wave were comparable to the Schweinfurt raids that same month and in October. Horrendous. It was one of those missions were just about anything that can go wrong did. It is the only mission I know of that American Heavy Bomber gunners engaged in a duel with a train carrying Flak guns.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 14, 2011)

Jabberwocky said:


> On combined B-17/B-24 groups, the B-24s indeed did fly lower, usually by several thousand feet. B-24s were also limited to the B-17's cruising speed.
> 
> B-17 crews called B-24s their "best escort" when operating in mixed group formations. The B-24s suffered more from flak, as they were generally easier targets. They were also more prone to suffering the predilections of FW-190s rather than Bf 109s. The 190s were an order of magnitude more effective against bombers than the 109s.
> 
> When B-24s operated in single type formations, the could fly higher and faster, making the job of flak and interceptors more dangerous.


 
".....the most successful means of bringing down bombers was undoubtedly the Luftwaffe's Company Front technique, evolved early in 1944 and practised with deadly effect throughtout that year by the Sturmgruppen. The heavily armed and armoured FW190s attacking as a body reduced the effectiveness of counter fire though saturation." - "The Mighty Eighth" by Roger A. Freeman

The concept of daylight precision bombing was a strategy adopted and prepared for prior to the entry of the United States into the war. Techniques and equipment were designed for daylight precision bombing and being available were the perfect complement to night area bombing as practiced by the RAF Bomber Command. When casualties became unacceptably high, the daylight campaign was shortly suspended and then reinitiated with casualty reducing mission criteria. No target or mission was ever considered valuable enough that aircrews were considered expendable. Even the most dangerous and casualty producing mission ever conducted on a POL producing target as planned never expected losses to be as high as they were. 

Jabberwockey, I am happy you returned to the thread. I am interested in your opinion of comments posted regarding the methodology used to determine B-17 and B-24 loss percentages. I think that actual loss percentages may be skewed and that it also is not necessarily a good method to determine individual aircraft ability to survive attack.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 14, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> I wouldn't call that an accurate statement.


 
Take it up with the USAAF, it's their conclusion, not mine.

Their post-war studies of German combat records and film concluded that the Fw 190 was over five times more effective in a nose to tail attack on a heavy bomber than a Bf 109.

Based on the data from 824 combat reports, the probability that a FW 190 would kill a B-17 in a "good" (ie accurate and short ranged) tail attack was 51%, with a 47% chance of lighting a fire in the target.

The same study shows that the chance of an Bf-109 achieving a kill under the same conditions was 9%, with an 8% chance of starting a fire in the target. 

In attacks from all angles, a Fw 190 was two and a half times more likely to hit a B-17, and seven times more likely to start a fire in the target.

Bf 109 pilots typically fired from twice the range of FW 190 pilots and they broke off much earlier. They also showed a larger order of target tracking mistakes as they were firing from further off.

Conversely, the Bf 109 was about more likely to hit a fighter target, despite firing from longer range, but only one third as likely to start a fire in a fighter target. Admittedly, this data is drawn from a much smaller pool of samples (51 vs 800-odd) so is probably less statistically significant.

On bomber survivability, the B-24 was marginally less likely (~8%) to catch fire after a fighter pass, according to the USAAF analysis.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 14, 2011)

Jabberwocky said:


> Take it up with the USAAF, it's their conclusion, not mine.
> 
> On bomber survivability, the B-24 was marginally less likely (~8%) to catch fire after a fighter pass, according to the USAAF analysis.



Do you know of an online source for this analysis? If not online do you know of an available print source?


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 14, 2011)

I've got data on all ~6800 8th AF bomber losses at home. I can do some statistical analysis, but it will only be by time series. Collating with 8th AF missions will take a while longer, as I'm working two (real) jobs at the moment. Might be able to provide more thorough analysis in a few days.

For the B-17 vs B-24 loss rates, was relying on some else's analysis, and I admit I dont know the methodology, but it appears to be simply combat losses (not total) divided by total sorties flown.

A quick look and dirty look at 8th AF heavy bomber losses per mission (from HERE) gives a figure of 0.44 aircraft losses per mission for B-17 groups and 0.29 aircraft losses per mission for B-24 groups, lending more credence to the theory of lower overall loss rates for B-24s. Of course, this doesn't indicate WHEN the losses occurred, against what targets ect, ect.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 14, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Do you know of an online source for this analysis? If not online do you know of an available print source?


 
The data is from US Ballistic Research Laboratories report No. 727, dated July 1950. 

Its available online at Germanluftwaffe.com, and probably floating around elsewhere as well.

Its pretty heavy going, a fairly serious attempt to correlate the efficiency of German fighter attacks on US bombers, as well as some other data on German attacks on fighters and USAAF attacks on German aircraft.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 14, 2011)

Jabberwocky said:


> I've got data on all ~6800 8th AF bomber losses at home. I can do some statistical analysis, but it will only be by time series. Collating with 8th AF missions will take a while longer, as I'm working two (real) jobs at the moment. Might be able to provide more thorough analysis in a few days.
> 
> For the B-17 vs B-24 loss rates, was relying on some else's analysis, and I admit I dont know the methodology, but it appears to be simply combat losses (not total) divided by total sorties flown.
> 
> A quick look and dirty look at 8th AF heavy bomber losses per mission (from HERE) gives a figure of 0.44 aircraft losses per mission for B-17 groups and 0.29 aircraft losses per mission for B-24 groups, lending more credence to the theory of lower overall loss rates for B-24s. Of course, this doesn't indicate WHEN the losses occurred, against what targets ect, ect.


 


Jabberwocky said:


> The data is from US Ballistic Research Laboratories report No. 727, dated July 1950.
> 
> Its available online at Germanluftwaffe.com, and probably floating around elsewhere as well.
> 
> Its pretty heavy going, a fairly serious attempt to correlate the efficiency of German fighter attacks on US bombers, as well as some other data on German attacks on fighters and USAAF attacks on German aircraft.


 
You are a very busy man. While I appreciate your efforts, please don't think I am expecting you to jump through hoops to support your statistics. You have posted some impressive information that I really appreciate and will try on my own to find sources. I am probably not as good a researcher as you are but will do my best. This is a fascinating and complex topic that is much like a detective story. I am not primarily an Aviation history student. I spend much time reading history from many eras and cultures. I am not a scholar in any of them, but it is amazing just in the span of my lifetime how many things academia thought they understood and found later they really did not. My views have greatly changed over the decades of my life. Thank you for providing really thought provoking stuff.


----------



## Readie (Jun 14, 2011)

High altitude precision bombing is an oxymoron.
Area bombing is more likely.
The only true precision bombing was at low level usually by the RAF at celebrated raids like operation "Chastise" and raids like the pinpoint attacks on Amiens Prison.
Cheers
John


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 14, 2011)

Readie said:


> High altitude precision bombing is an oxymoron.
> Area bombing is more likely.
> The only true precision bombing was at low level usually by the RAF at celebrated raids like operation "Chastise" and raids like the pinpoint attacks on Amiens Prison.
> Cheers
> John



Amiens and the low-altitude bombing by Mosquitos in Northern Europe, along with 617 Sqdn, might be the most celebrated example of 'precision' bombing operations in the West, but these are hardly the only examples.

Ploiesti/Operation Tidal Wave seems to fit that mold as well, despite the less than successful nature of the mission.

You might also want to specify level bombing, otherwise German dive bombing operations all across Europe (France, Crete and Malta all spring to mind) would count. There was little bombing in WW2 that was much more accurate than a Ju-87 in an envelope of air superiority.


----------



## Readie (Jun 14, 2011)

Jabberwocky said:


> Amiens and the low-altitude bombing by Mosquitos in Northern Europe, along with 617 Sqdn, might be the most celebrated example of 'precision' bombing operations in the West, but these are hardly the only examples.
> 
> Ploiesti/Operation Tidal Wave seems to fit that mold as well, despite the less than successful nature of the mission.
> 
> You might also want to specify level bombing, otherwise German dive bombing operations all across Europe (France, Crete and Malta all spring to mind) would count. There was little bombing in WW2 that was much more accurate than a Ju-87 in an envelope of air superiority.


 
Ok 'level bombing' for the examples I gave. Although two totally different attacks in execution.
With the greatest respect to your countryman's appalling loss rate Ploiesti is not an example of 'precision' bombing. Most of the refinery was left intact after the raid.

From wiki.
Allied assessment of the attack estimated a loss of 40% of the refining capacity at the Ploiești refineries,:75 although some refineries were largely untouched. Most of the damage was repaired within weeks, after which the net output of fuel was greater than before the raid.:75 Circa September, the Enemy Oil Committee appraisal of Ploiești bomb damage indicated "no curtailment of overall product output" as many of the refineries had been operating previously below maximum capacity.


The USAAF got a bit better at area bombing as WW2 progressed, perfecting the technique in Vietnam. But, precision? No, that's the RAF's speciality alone.

We invented 'dive bombing' at Orford Ness in WW1. 

We then proceeded to be the only major force not to deploy a dedicated dive bomber. The Royal Navy attempted to introduce their own on several occasions, but were never able to do so due to various reasons, not the least of which was political interference by the RAF. They only produced hybrid aircraft: the Blackburn Skua, a dive bomber/fighter that was used for a short time and in small numbers, and the Fairey Barracuda, a dive bomber/torpedo bomber. Rather ironic eh.

The Stuka? devastating in the circumstances you describe. As much as a terror weapon with the sirens etc.


Cheers
John


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 14, 2011)

Readie said:


> High altitude precision bombing is an oxymoron.
> Area bombing is more likely.
> The only true precision bombing was at low level usually by the RAF at celebrated raids like operation "Chastise" and raids like the pinpoint attacks on Amiens Prison.
> Cheers
> John



While this maybe true it ignores that many air forces took time to realize that results did NOT follow pre-war theory. The result of this is that many air forces not only entered the war with planes incapable of performing their intended tasks but with aircrew inadequately trained to even perform their "theoretical" missions let alone perform in actual war conditions. 

As far as Ploiesti goes, as least the majority of the crews FOUND the oil refinery, which would have been considered precision in 1939-41 

The USAAC is not the only force in history to keep going with a tactic in the face of growing evidence that it wasn't working. 

Once you had a steamroller of production, training, operational planning/strategic goals and such pointed and moving in one direction it might have taken 1-2 years to get it to really change direction.


----------



## Hop (Jun 14, 2011)

> High altitude precision bombing is an oxymoron.



Definitely. The 8th AF carried out their own study in 1945. From that, a table comparing accuracy against altitude:







Note this table is for accuracy in good conditions only (less than 14% of total bombing september - december 1944). Most 8th AF bombing was carried out in poor visibility with radar aiming, and accuracy was much, much worse. (35% of all 8th AF bombs dropped sept - dec 1944 were through complete cloud using radar, only 0.2% of those landed within 1,000ft of the aiming point)

Incidentally, total accuracy from the same report, for the period September - December 1944:

Within 1,000 ft of aiming point - 5.9%
Within 1 mile of aiming point - 32%


----------



## Readie (Jun 14, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> (1)While this maybe true it ignores that many air forces took time to realize that results did NOT follow pre-war theory. The result of this is that many air forces not only entered the war with planes incapable of performing their intended tasks but with aircrew inadequately trained to even perform their "theoretical" missions let alone perform in actual war conditions.
> 
> (2)As far as Ploiesti goes, as least the majority of the crews FOUND the oil refinery, which would have been considered precision in 1939-41
> 
> ...




(1) Fair point. But, is that unusual to find that any 'pre war' model is just that.. a model? Reality is another thing entirely.
(2) Fair point. But, its not correct to laud Ploiesti as 'precision bombing' as that puts it in the damn busters category.which it clearly is not.
(3) Blimey...where would all be without the mindless 'just carry on' ? Its the British way you know . WW1 must be the classic example of that attitude. Europeans manged to kill a high percentage of men to gain nothing. Even the USA's arrival in 1917 didn't really change things. We had got quite good at killing each other by then...
(4) Possibly but,we had engaged in a war of attrition (rather like WW1) and our course was set. I don't believe that the bombing of Germany would have ceased until either they surrendered or there was nothing left to bomb.Or, the Germans were obliterated by A bombs when they were available and the powers that be decided to use them.

Cheers
John


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 14, 2011)

Jabberwocky said:


> Take it up with the USAAF, it's their conclusion, not mine.
> 
> Their post-war studies of German combat records and film concluded that the Fw 190 was over five times more effective in a nose to tail attack on a heavy bomber than a Bf 109.
> 
> ...



I thought the Bf109 had better high altitude performance than the Fw190 (?)


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 14, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> While this maybe true it ignores that many air forces took time to realize that results did NOT follow pre-war theory. The result of this is that many air forces not only entered the war with planes incapable of performing their intended tasks but with aircrew inadequately trained to even perform their "theoretical" missions let alone perform in actual war conditions.
> 
> As far as Ploiesti goes, as least the majority of the crews FOUND the oil refinery, which would have been considered precision in 1939-41
> 
> ...


 
I go through this sort of thing both at work and in the woods, you engage in a course of action, but it isn't bearing fruit...
Is it because you haven't given it enough time, or because it's the wrong course of action?


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jun 14, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> I thought the Bf109 had better high altitude performance than the Fw190 (?)


 
yes, the Bf109 was better at altitude. Funny though about the USAAF records concerning the 109 vs 190 in shooting
down their bombers.. the vast majority were shot down with 109's ( their 9% chance according to the USAAF).


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 14, 2011)

Readie said:


> High altitude precision bombing is an oxymoron.
> Area bombing is more likely.
> The only true precision bombing was at low level usually by the RAF at celebrated raids like operation "Chastise" and raids like the pinpoint attacks on Amiens Prison.
> Cheers
> John


 


Jabberwocky said:


> Ploiesti/Operation Tidal Wave seems to fit that mold as well, despite the less than successful nature of the mission.
> .


 


Readie said:


> With the greatest respect to your countryman's appalling loss rate Ploiesti is not an example of 'precision' bombing. Most of the refinery was left intact after the raid.
> Cheers
> John


 


Shortround6 said:


> While this maybe true it ignores that many air forces took time to realize that results did NOT follow pre-war theory. The result of this is that many air forces not only entered the war with planes incapable of performing their intended tasks but with aircrew inadequately trained to even perform their "theoretical" missions let alone perform in actual war conditions.
> 
> As far as Ploiesti goes, as least the majority of the crews FOUND the oil refinery, which would have been considered precision in 1939-41
> 
> ...


 


Hop said:


> Definitely. The 8th AF carried out their own study in 1945. From that, a table comparing accuracy against altitude:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


gjs238 said:


> I thought the Bf109 had better high altitude performance than the Fw190 (?)




In my post Precision Daylight Bombing from High Altitude is a concept and doctrine of USAAC/USAAF, not a reality. I do not think any of the planners of Tidal Wave thought the mission an application of that doctrine. The thing about doctrine is that it often is crafted by Military leaders who make their careers in creating it and often vigorously defend it even when it fails. If you have ever spent time around Generals you understand the enormous egos involved. More than politicians, Generals within their service are treated as demigods. The same defense of ego is true in the corporate and academic sphere. People are fired and transferred to prevent exposure of corporate inefficiency and Scholars faced with facts contradicting a life of belief often attempt to obfuscate and discredit the individuals presenting the facts.

Precision is a relative term. Obviously the precision expected, claimed, and demonstrated did not match. It was more precise than RAF Area Night Bombing which early in the campaign sometimes bombed the wrong city; but both had about the same ultimate effectiveness. Bomber advocates have been twisting the truth of how precise they can bomb since bombing began. The chart Hop provided indicates those must have been very big pickle barrels they were hitting with the Norden Bomb Sight. As recently as the 1990-91 Gulf War there is deception. While precision strikes occurred and were presented as the norm, they were actually a small percentage of strikes.

The bombing of Ploesti by Tidal Wave was without a doubt a failure from the standpoint of mission objectives. It is more of an intelligence failure than a Bombing failure in than the mission was planned using inaccurate information. The aircrews and aircraft performed magnificently under the conditions of the mission. Tidal Wave was conducted very early in the timeline of the USAAF bombing campaign and much still needed to be learned about what could be done with the tools available. Please remember USAAF had yet to experience the Schweinfurt missions.

Miltary doctrine and established industrial production inertia is very difficult to redirect. The best hope is that the structure of leadership and weapons designed have enough flexibility to adapt quickly when doctrine crashes into reality.

The Bf109s altitude performance was significant versus other fighters but less valuable than the versatility of Fw190s attacking Bombers that were flying at the speeds and altitudes of typical missions. But there were many more Bf109s produced than Fw190s.


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jun 14, 2011)

Operation Tidal Wave was one of the costliest for the USAAF in the European Theater, with 60 aircraft and 700 aircrewmen lost.
the intelligence was there, they knew it would be heavily defended. the USAAF entered with their eyes wide open.

Give credit where credit is due. the Luftwaffe Flak crews did there job, with stunning results.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 14, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> IAs recently as the 1990-91 Gulf War there is deception. While precision strikes occurred and were presented as the norm, they were actually a small percentage of strikes.


 
I suspect that the data was somewhat skewed by the carpet bombing of B-52s. Also, the amount of precision guided weapons may have been limited. With the advent of GPS guided weapons and their cheaper procurement, precision strikes have become all important and non-precision strikes are probably now in the background, unless we see another heavily fortified line we have to cross.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 14, 2011)

During the planning of Tidal Wave intelligence indicated it was a heavily defended target and more importantly that the strike force designed could significantly damage known production capability. Intelligence failed in determining the actual defensive strength and more importantly the actual production capability of the various refineries. If these two factors were known, a strike on Ploesti would have been delayed, as future strikes were until resources and closer airfields were available. The strength of defense had little to do with failure of the mission. If all the bombers sent had bombed and bombed accurately it would still have been impossible to meet the strategic objective of significantly reducing production. 

Sources:

Ploesti: The Great Ground-Air Battle of 1 August 1943 by James Dugan Carroll Stewart

Black Sunday: Ploesti by Michael Hill

Target Ploesti by Leroy W. Newby

Ploesti: Oil Strike by John Sweetman


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 14, 2011)

Readie said:


> We have had this discussion before
> You know I mean the size of bombs that I referred to in my earlier post.
> The B29 was a great bomber, but in WW2 the Lancaster did more.
> Cheers
> John



You and me and will just have to agree to disagree...

(Besides the size of the bombs is innacurate as well. The B-29 could carry bombs just as large, but that is not for this discussion and I do not want to get this off topic).


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 14, 2011)

davparlr said:


> I suspect that the data was somewhat skewed by the carpet bombing of B-52s. Also, the amount of precision guided weapons may have been limited. With the advent of GPS guided weapons and their cheaper procurement, precision strikes have become all important and non-precision strikes are probably now in the background, unless we see another heavily fortified line we have to cross.


 
I agree with you 100%. It only took 80 years for doctrine to match reality. The number of precision weapons available was small, but dramatically increased by 2000.


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jun 14, 2011)

' _The strength of defense had little to do with failure of the mission _'

oh my Lord... are you serious? so if the Germans didn't defend the oil fields
with 88's, Me109's, Me110's, the romanians with there IR80's, it would still
have been a failure for the allies? give your head a shake man. they were planning the raid
for weeks in the desert of Lybia, right down to mock ups of the buildings.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 14, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> ' _The strength of defense had little to do with failure of the mission _'
> 
> oh my Lord... are you serious? so if the Germans didn't defend the oil fields
> with 88's, Me109's, Me110's, the romanians with there IR80's, it would still
> ...


 
Yes I am serious.
Yes even if flak or fighters had at the last moment miraculously failed to appear that day it would have failed its strategic mission.
Inaccurate intelligence is the norm not the exception, the degree of inaccuracy is often a deciding factor for success. Weeks of planning using mockups is useful but pointless without accurate and fresh intelligence. Son-Tay is the first thing that comes to mind.
They had mock-ups for Tidal Wave and weeks of rigorous training, but inaccurate intelligence of what was really there and what its capabilities were. The latter is why Tidal Wave was a failure.

It may just be me, but I get the impression you are very sensitive to any comment that may or may not imply that the Luftwaffe and the Bf109 were anything but spectacular in their performance. My comments about Tidal Wave in no way impugn the performance of the Luftwaffe or Bf109.

If you would like to discuss this further please PM me, start a new thread, or read the books I referenced so we do not drift this thread further. I am done responding to Tidal Wave in this thread.


----------



## Readie (Jun 14, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You and me and will just have to agree to disagree...
> 
> (Besides the size of the bombs is innacurate as well. The B-29 could carry bombs just as large, but that is not for this discussion and I do not want to get this off topic).



*I just want to say...*

We will, The B29 is the next generation and although considered for other theaters, and briefly evaluated in England, the B-29 was predominantly used in World War II in the Pacific Theatre. Not in Europe....so, the comparing the ETO bombers and the Superfortress is a bit pointless. The use of YB-29-BW 41-36393, the so-named Hobo Queen, one of the service test aircraft flown around several British airfields in early 1944, was thought to be as a "disinformation" program intended to deceive the Germans into believing that the B-29 would be deployed to Europe.

Enough said.
Cheers
John


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 14, 2011)

edited


----------



## Readie (Jun 14, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> The statistics quoted here were only really known after the conflict finished.



True, oh for hindsight in advance eh.
Cheers
John


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 14, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> I probably would want to be in a B 17 because it was perceived as being stronger. The statistics quoted here were only really known after the conflict finished.


 
Yep. Statistics as in Mark Twain's comment "there are lies, damn lies and statistics". Neither choice is something a sane man knowing the reality of the war would want to be in position to have to make. I guess it would be a better position than being a U-Boat crewman after 1941. Those guys really had a terrible loss rate.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 14, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> yes, the Bf109 was better at altitude. Funny though about the USAAF records concerning the 109 vs 190 in shooting
> down their bombers.. the vast majority were shot down with 109's ( their 9% chance according to the USAAF).


 
JG 1, JG 4 and JG 11 all preferred to use FW 190s against US bombers while the Bf 109s were tasked with engaging the fighters. 

Do you have any statistics on Bf 109 bomber claims, vs FW 190 bomber claims?


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 14, 2011)

Jabberwocky said:


> JG 1, JG 4 and JG 11 all preferred to use FW 190s against US bombers while the Bf 109s were tasked with engaging the fighters.
> 
> Do you have any statistics on Bf 109 bomber claims, vs FW 190 bomber claims?



I assume the BF109's weren't quite good enough at holding off the fighters to permit Bf110's to engage the bombers (?)


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jun 14, 2011)

almost every *dedicated Luftwaffe website *out there. also, lots of *books *on the subject. too much
to list here. sorry.


----------



## Readie (Jun 15, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> Give credit where credit is due. the Luftwaffe Flak crews did there job, with stunning results.



'Stunning results'? I think that that is borderline comment.


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 15, 2011)

Readie said:


> 'Stunning results'? I think that that is borderline comment.


 That's right, after all, they weren't using Merlins


----------



## seesul (Jun 15, 2011)

Timppa said:


> Willi Reschke ("Jadgeschwader 301/302 "Wilde Sau") wrote:
> 
> "It was a fact that German fighter pilots would rather attack a Liberator than a Flying Fortress. As a rule, one well executed attack was sufficient to cause a B-24 to go down, but that was not always the case with a B-17. Two attacks were often required to down a B-17, and there were cases when a German pilot expended all his ammunition on a B-17 with no apparent effect."



Yes, and that says a lot. He´s got 20 4 engine bombers on his credit...


----------



## Readie (Jun 15, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> That's right, after all, they weren't using Merlins


 
haha ...perhaps the USAAF should have 8)

What I meant was that gloating over so many of your countryman's deaths is inappropriate in my humble opinion.

There's a time and a place

Cheers
John


----------



## davparlr (Jun 15, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> I assume the BF109's weren't quite good enough at holding off the fighters to permit Bf110's to engage the bombers (?)


 
That is problem the Germans had after December, 1943. They did not have fighters that were capable of holding off the allied fighters until the fall of 1944 and then they did not have the number of the capable fighters to stop the bombing.

Because of the higher cruising speed of the B-24, if used correctly, its exposure time was less than the B-17. For a 300 mile ingress and egress distance, the B-24 mission would be 15 minutes less than the B-17. That does not sound like much but I suspect that under fire 15 minutes feels like a lifetime, maybe literally.


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jun 15, 2011)

Readie said:


> haha ...perhaps the USAAF should have 8)
> 
> What I meant was that gloating over so many of your countryman's deaths is inappropriate in my humble opinion.
> 
> ...


 
who's gloating.. not me. and I take extream OFFENCE if thats your implication.
I'm proud of my country and herritage (German for one).. sorry if its idiologies 
don't agree with you.


----------



## Readie (Jun 15, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> who's gloating.. not me. and I take extream OFFENCE if thats your implication.
> I'm proud of my country and herritage (German for one).. sorry if its idiologies
> don't agree with you.



I think you posted 'Give credit where credit is due. the Luftwaffe Flak crews did there job, with stunning results' deliberately to cause offence Mister.
If you agree with historical German ideologies then you really are out of touch with reality.

John


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jun 15, 2011)

Readie said:


> I think you posted 'Give credit where credit is due. the Luftwaffe Flak crews did there job, with stunning results' deliberately to cause offence Mister.
> If you agree with historical German ideologies then you really out of touch with reality.
> 
> John


 
*I SEE *reality everytime I watch an episode of *COPS*.


----------



## Readie (Jun 15, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> *I SEE *reality everytime I watch an episode of *COPS*.



What on earth has that got to do with your earlier remarks?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2011)

Everyone just chill out. Heated discussions are fine, but lets not let it get out of hand.


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jun 15, 2011)

Readie said:


> What on earth has that got to do with your earlier remarks?


guess on your end on the pond it would be akin to coronation street.. anyways,
I do not follow the Nazi Idiology for the most part. but my grandfather on my moms side
was an Bf109 pilot. he believed in what he was fighting for, and I respect those beliefs.

not every German pilot/soldier was hypnotised by Hitler yah know, or subscribed to his ideas of
a German world. even if the Germans won the war, Hitler would have been killed shortly thereafter.

all I'm saying is that assumptions are a dangerous thing, you assumed certain things about me without
even knowing me. that sir, is NOT cool.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 15, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> almost every *dedicated Luftwaffe website *out there. also, lots of *books *on the subject. too much
> to list here. sorry.


 
Just a few sources, perhaps?

In all my reading on the Luftwaffe, offline and on, I've NEVER seen a statistical analysis/breakdown of claims separated by fighter types by theater.

There might be one floating around, though, if you'd be so kind as to back your assertions with evidence, other than "everyone knows".

The very high scoring gruppen primarily flew Bf 109s, but they also primarily flew on the Eastern Front. In 1943/1944, the Bf 109 was predominant in Italy and the Eastern Front, the FW 190 the main fighter in the West and the two did about equal duty over German and over Finland and Norway

Looking at a May-1943 Luftwaffe oob, counting servicable aircraft:

Germany (Reich defence): 
FW 190: 82
Bf 109: 112

Finland Norway:
FW 190: 58
Bf 109: 50

Italy
FW 190: 4
Bf 109: 212

West
FW 190: 296
Bf 109: 39

East:
FW 190: 171
Bf 109: 469


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jun 15, 2011)

a few sites to compare 109 vs 190


Kacha`s Luftwaffe Page

Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum

Luftwaffe Experten Message Board



a few books for stats on 109 victories

Hungarian Eagles.The Hungarian Air Forces 1920-1945
KM22-Messerschmitt Bf-109G_K Vol.2
Schiffer - Aircraft of the Luftwaffe Fighter Aces Vol. 2. A Chronicle in Photographs
Jagdgeschwader 53 Pik As

you'll find the info and more. sorry I couldn't have been more help.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 15, 2011)

"Spitfire vs Bf 109" by Tony Holmes also has a slight breakdown of kills during the BoB.

People will start getting infractions if they don't heed Adler's advice.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 16, 2011)

> Kacha`s Luftwaffe Page
> 
> Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum
> 
> ...


 

I'm well aware of both the LEMB and the 12 O'clock high forum, being a member of both.

The paper references you provide are very general. I have both Weal's JG 53 book and both volumes of Jonowicz’s 109G/K history. Both are narrative in format, one dealing with a unit primarily equipped with 109s – which only transferred to Reich defence in late 1943 - and the other providing light theatre-by-theatre account of later 109 operations. 

Neither go into any detail in regarding statistics on Bf 109 kills, let alone the relative performance compared to the FW 190.

The Schiffer publication is primarily a photo book, not an analysis, and I’m struggling to understand the relevancy of including a history of the Hungarian air force, when it performed the majority of its operations on the Eastern front and only a minimal amount of time engaging USAAF heavies. 


Again, could you kindly provide some statistics that back up your claim that the “vast majority” of USAAF heavies were shot down with 109s? 

As you've made the claim, the burden of supporting it falls to you.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 16, 2011)

Hard to know which aircraft was the better bomber killer IMO. Most of the aces flew the 109, but conversely the FW190 was much more heavily armed. In terms of performance, my humble opinion is that in the critical areas of climb dive and speed, the FW held the edge.

Perhaps the 109 was more the pilots choice, but the 190 was more the killing machine


----------



## Readie (Jun 16, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Hard to know which aircraft was the better bomber killer IMO. Most of the aces flew the 109, but conversely the FW190 was much more heavily armed. In terms of performance, my humble opinion is that in the critical areas of climb dive and speed, the FW held the edge.
> 
> Perhaps the 109 was more the pilots choice, but the 190 was more the killing machine



I think that you are right parsifal. The FW190 had the edge, A truly fearsome machine in the right hands.
Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (Jun 16, 2011)

Njaco said:


> "Spitfire vs Bf 109" by Tony Holmes also has a slight breakdown of kills during the BoB.
> 
> People will start getting infractions if they don't heed Adler's advice.


 
Yes, received and understood 

Now...back to the planes....

Cheers
John


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jun 16, 2011)

Jabberwocky said:


> .
> *snip*


Maj. Georg-Peter Eder 36 
78 
JG 51, JG 2, JG 1, JG 26, Kdo Nowotny, EJG 2, JG 7 rather 21+ 
Maj. Anton Hackl 34 
192 
JG 77, JG 11, JG 76, JG 26, JG 300 maybe only 21 
Oblt. Konrad "Pitt" Bauer 32 
57 
JG 51, JG 3, JG 300 - 
Obst. Walter Dahl 30 
128 
JG 3, JG z.b.v., JG 300, EJG 2 - 
Maj. Werner Schroer 26 
114 
JG 27, JG 54, JG 3 15x B-17, 4x B-17 HSS, 7x B-24 
Obstlt. Egon Mayer 26 
102 
JG 2 21x B-17, 5x B-24 
Maj. Rolf-Günther Hermichen 26 
64 
ZG 1, ZG 76, SKG 210, JG 26, JG 11, JG 104 - 
Maj. Hermann Staiger 25 
63 
JG 20, JG 51, JG 26, JG 1, JG 7 21x B-17, 3x B-17 HSS, 1x B-24, 1x Viermot 
Lt. Anton-Rudolf Piffer 26 
35 
JG 1 17x B -17, 5x B-17 HSS, 3x B-24, 1x Stirling 
Hptm. Hugo Frey 25 
32 
LG 2, JG 1, JG 11 19x B-17, 5x B-24, 1x Viermot 
Lt. Alwin Doppler 25 
29 
JG 1, JG 11 16x B-17, 9x B-24 
Obstlt. Kurt Bühligen 24 
112 
JG 2 - 
Hptm. Hans Ehlers 24 
55 
JG 3, JG 1 18x B-17, 3x B-17 HSS, 3x B-24 
Maj. Friedrich-Karl "Tutti" Müller 23 
140 
JG 53, JG 3 15x B-17, 6x B-24, 2x B-24 HSS 
Hptm. Heinrich Wurzer 23 
26 
JG 302 7x B-17, 12x B-24, 4x B-24 HSS 
Ofw. Walter Loos 22 
38 
JG 3, JG 300, JG 301 - 
Hptm. Hans Weik 22 
36 
JG 3, Erg.Gr.Ost, EJG 2 15x B-17, 4x B-17 HSS, 2x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS 
Oblt. Werner Gerth 22 
27 
JG 53, Sturmstaffel 1, JG 3 16x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 5x B-24 
Obstlt. Heinz "Pritzel" Bär 21 
221 
JG 51, JG 77, EJGr. Süd, JG 1, JG 3, EJG 2, JV 44 11x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 8x B-24 
Hptm. Fritz Karch 21 
47 
JG 2 - 
Lt. Willi Unger 21 
24 
JG 3, JG 7 13x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 5x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS 
Hptm. Josef "Sepp" Wurmheller 20+ 
102 
JG 53, JG 2 - 
Oblt. Wilhelm "Willy" Kientsch 20 
53 
JG 27 11x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 7x B-24 
Hptm. Hans-Heinrich Koenig 20 
28 
ZG 76, NJG 3, Jasta Helgoland, JG 11 10x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 7x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS 
Ofw. Willi Reschke 20 
27 
JG 302, JG 301 9x B-17,1x B-17 HSS, 1x B-17 e.V., 9x B-24 
Oblt. Adolf "Addi" Glunz 19 
71 
JG 52, JG 26, EJG 2, JG 7 14x B-17, 1x B-17HSS, 1x B-17 e.V., 2x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS 
Lt. Klaus Neumann 19 
37 
JG 51, JG 3, JG 7, JV 44 12x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 5x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS 
Hptm. Heinz Knoke 19 
33 
JG 52, JG 11, JG 1 15x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 3x B-24 
Hptm. Rudolf Engleder 19+ 
22+ 
JG 1, EJG 2 7x B-17, 10x B-17 HSS, 2x B-24 
Hptm. Alfred Grislawski 18 
133 
JG 52, JGr. Süd, JGr. 50, JG 1, JG 53 17x B-17, 1x B-24 
Ofw. Siegfried Zick 18 
31 
JG 11 12x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 4x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS 
Lt. Anton Benning 18 
28 
JG 302, JG 301 - 
Maj. Emil-Rudolf Schnoor 18 
23 
JG 1 15x B-17, 3x B-24 
Maj. Herbert Huppertz 17 
78 
JG 51, JG 1, JG 5, JG 2 13x B-17, 4x B-24 
Ofw. Eduard Isken 17 
56 
JG 77, JGr 200, JG 53 - 
Oblt. Klaus Bretschneider 17 
34 
JG 300 7x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 6x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS, 1x B-24 e.V. 
Oblt. Gustav Sturm 17 
22 
JG 27, JG 3, JG 51, EJG 2, JG 7 5x B-17, 3x B-17 HSS, 5x B-24, 2x B-24 HSS, 1x Lancaster, 1x Halifax 
Uffz. Rudolf Hübl 17 
20 
JG 1 8x B-17,6x B-17HSS,2x B-24,1x B-24 HSS 
Ofw. Johannes Pichler 16 
75 
JG 77 - 
Maj. Ernst Börngen 16 
41 
JG 27 - 
Lt. Hans Iffland 16 
18 
JG 3 5x B-17, 4x B-17 HSS, 5x B-24, 2x B-24 HSS 
Lt. Rudolf "Rudi" Rademacher 15 
97 
JG 54, JGr. Nord, JG 7 - 
Lt. Leopold "Poldi" Münster 15 
 95 
JG 3 9x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 4x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS 
Oblt. Otto Wessling 15 
83 
JG 3 9x B-17, 6x B-24 
Lt. Oskar Zimmermann 15 
48 
JG 51, JG 3 - 
Maj. Günther Specht 15 
34 
ZG 26, JG 1, JG 11 12x B-17, 3x B-24 
Lt. Walter Köhne 15 
30 
JG 52, JG 1, JG 11, EJG 2 8x B-17, 4x B-17 HSS, 2x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS 
Ofw. Willi Maximowitz 15 
27 
Sturmstaffel 1, JG 3 10x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 3x B-24 
Oblt. Herbert Rollwage 14+ 
85~ 
JG 53, JG 106 - 
Obst. Walter "Gulle" Oesau 14 
125 
JG 51, JG 3, JG 2, JG 1 10x B-17, 2x B-24, 1x Lancaster, 1x B-17 e.V. 
Ofw. Erwin Laskowski 14 
46 
JG 51, JG 11 - 
Oblt. Franz Ruhl 14 
37 
JG 3 10x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 1x B-24, 2x Lancaster 
Maj. Walter Matoni 14 
34 
JG 27, JG 26, JG 2, JG 11 - 
Maj. Peter Werfft-Wessely 14 
26 
JG 27 4x B-17, 6x B-24, 4x B-24 HSS 
Hptm. Gerhard Sommer 14 
20 
JG 1, JG 11 10x B-17, 4x B-24 
Maj. Klaus Mietusch 13 
75 
JG 26 8x B-17, 4x B-17 HSS, 1x B-24 
Obstlt. Gerhard Michalski 13 
73 
JG 53, JG z.b.v., JG 4 8x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 3x B-24, 1x Lancaster 
Maj. Armin Köhler 13 
69 
JG 27 - 
Maj. Erich Hohagen 13 
56 
JG 51, JG 27, JG 2, JG 7, JV 44 - 
Hptm. Harry Koch 13 
30 
JG 26, JG 1 10x B-17, 3x B-17 HSS 
Fw. Karl-Heinz Böttner 13 
25 
JG 77 - 
Fw. Otto Pritzl 13 
19 
JG 51, JG 302, JG 3, JG 7 - 
Lt. Emil-Karl Demuth 13 
17 
JG 1 9x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 2x B-24 
Oblt. Waldemar-H. Waldi" Radener 12+ 
37 
JG 26, JG 300 6 Viermots as unconfirmed and probably a few more with JG 300 
Maj. Erwin Clausen 12 
132 
LG 2, JG 77, JG 11 11x B-17, 1x B-24 
Obst. Gustav Rödel 12 
98 
JG 27 7x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 4x B-24 
Maj. Siegfried "Wumm" Schnell 12 
93 
JG 2, JG 54 - 
Hptm. Karl Paashaus 12 
26 
JG 53 8x B-17,3x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS 
Oblt. Ernst-Erich Hirschfeld 12 
24 
JG 54, JG 300 3x B-17, 8x B-24, 1x B-24 e.V. 
Lt. Rudi Dassow 12 
22 
ZG 1, ZG 76, JG 6 - 
Lt. Jürgen Hoerschelmann 12 
18 
JG 3 7x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 3x B-24 
Fw. Hans Schäfer 12 
18 
JG 3 2x B-17, 4x B-17 HSS, 4x B-24, 2x B-24 HSS 
Hptm. Peter Jenne 12 
17+ 
ZG 1, ZG 26, JG 300 - 
Ofw. Ernst Haase 12 
16 
JG 302 4x B-17, 3x B-17 HSS, 3x B-24, 2x B-24 HSS 
Fw. Otto Ehrhardt 12 
14 
JG 3 8x B-17, 3x B-17 HSS, 1x B-24 
Obst. Josef "Pips" Priller 11 
101 
JG 51, JG 26 7x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 3x B-24 
Oblt. Hans Grünberg 11+ 
82 
JG 3, JG 7, JV 44 5x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 3x B-24, 2x Lancaster 
Oblt. Eugen-Ludwig Zweigart 11 
69 
JG 54 9x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 1x B-24 
Lt. Walter Brandt 11 
57 
LG 2, JG 77, JG 3 - 
Oblt. Karl "Charly" Willius 11 
50 
JG 26, JG 51 8x B-17, 3x B-24 
Maj. Karl Rammelt 11 
46 
JG 51 - 
Maj. Wilhelm Moritz 11+ 
44 
ZG 1, JG 77, JG 1, JG 51, JG 3, EJG 1, JG 4 2x B-17, 2x B-17HSS, 3x B-24, 4x B-24 HSS 
Ofw. Friedrich May 11 
29 
JG 2 8x B-17, 2x B-24, 1x Lancaster 
Hptm. Ekkehard Tichy 11 
25 
JG 53, JG 3 6x B-17, 4x B-17 HSS, 1x B-24 
Hptm. Rüdiger von Kirchmayr 10+ 
50 
JG 1, JG 11 2x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 5x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS 
Ofw. Karl-Heinz Munsche 10+ 
20+ 
JG 2 9x B-17, 1x B-24 
Ofw. Hubert Engst 10+ 
20~ 
JG Hermann, JG 300 - 
Maj. Erich Rudorffer 10 
224 
JG 2, JG 54, JG 7 - 
Maj. Jürgen Harder 10 
65 
JG 53, JG 11 4x B-17, 6x B-24 
Lt. Hermann Buchner 10 
58 
LG 2, St.G. 1, SG 2, SG 151, Kdo Nowotny, JG 7 - 
Maj. Horst Haase 10 
56


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jun 16, 2011)

JG 51, JG 3 6x B-17, 4x B-24 
Oblt. Karl-Heinz Bendert 10 
55 
JG 27, JG 104 - 
Maj. Ernst Düllberg 10 
45 
JG 3, JG 27, JG 76, EJG 2, JG 7 5x B-17, 4x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS 
Hptm. Herbert Schob 10 
28 
LG 1, ZG 26, ZG 76 - 
Lt. Otto Russ 10 
27 
JG 53 - 
Fw. Horst Rippert 10 
26 
JGr. 200, JG 27 - 
Ofw. Hans-Gerd Wennekers 10 
24 
JG 1, JG 11 7x B-17, 3x B-24 
Fw. Kurt Gren 10 
23 
JG 51, JG 3 - 
Lt. Leo Schuhmacher 10 
23 
ZG 76, JG 1, JG 3, EJG 2, JV 44 - 
Lt. Karl Wünsch 10 
22 
JG 27 - 
Lt. Helmut Beckmann 10 
18 
JG 27 - 
Lt. Hans Schrangl 10 
14 
JG 11 - 
Ofw. Franz Steiner 10 
12 
JG 27, JG 1, JG 11, JV 44 6x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 3x B-24 
Oblt. Heinz Seidel 10 
11 
JG 302 6x B-17, 3x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS 
Fw. Gerhard Vivroux 10 
11 
Sturmstaffel 1, JG 3 7x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 1x B-24 
Fhj.Fw. Heinz Angres 10 
10 
JG 3 4x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 4x B-24 
Oblt. Hans Pancritius 10 
10 
JG 1, JG 11 - 
Lt. Rudolf Metz 10 
10 
JG 5, Sturmstaffel 1, JG 3, JG 4 3x B-17, 3x B-17 HSS, 4x B-24 
Ofw. Rudi "Bulle" Zwesken 9+ 
45~ 
JG 52, JG 300 - 
Oblt. Fritz Stehle 9+ 
26 
ZG 26, JG 7 - 
Oblt. Erich Hondt 9+ 
14 
JG 11, Jasta Helgoland, JV 44 - 
Lt. Karl "Quax" Schnörrer 9 
46 
JG 54, JG 7, Kdo Nowotny 8x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS 
Lt. Fritz Gromotka 9 
29 
JG 27 3x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 4x B-24 
Hptm. Hans Remmer 9 
26 
JG 27 3x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 5x B-24 
Hptm. Otto Meyer 9 
21 
JG 26, JG 27 - 
Lt. Siegfried Müller 9 
17 
JG 51, JG 3, JG 7 2x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 6x B-24 
Lt. Walter Hagenah 9 
17 
JG 3, JG 11, JG 7 4x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 3x B-24 
Hptm. Eberhard Schade 9 
11 
JG 27 - 
Oblt. Heinrich Klöpper 8 
94 
JG 77, JG 51, JG 1 - 
Oblt. Oskar "Ossi" Romm 8 
92  
JG 51, JG 3 4x B-17, 4x B-24 
Ofw. Helmut Rüffler 8 
88 
JG 3, JG 51 3x B-17, 3x B-17 HSS, 2x B-24 
Hptm. Otto Schultz 8 
73 
JG 51 - 
Oblt. Günther Seeger 8 
56 
JG 2, JG 53 6x B-17, 2x B-24 
Oblt. Gerhard Vogt 8 
48 
JG 26 3x B-17, 3x B-17 HSS, 2x B-24 HSS 
Maj. Rudolf Klemm 8 
42 
JG 54, JG 26, JG 7 5x B-17, 3x B-24 
Fw. Oskar Bösch 8 
18 
Sturmstaffel 1, JG 3 4x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 2x B-24 
Oblt. Kurt Gabler 8 
14+ 
JG 300 2x B-17, 6x B-24 
Lt. Alexander Ottnad 8 
14 
JG 27 - 
Ofw. Artur Groß 8 
11 
JG 302 2x B-17, 2x B-24, 4x B-24 HSS 
Lt. Hans-Ulrich Jung 8 
10 
JG 3 5x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 1x B-24 
Fw. Bernhard Kunze 8 
9 
JG 1 - 
Maj. Heinrich Ehrler 7 
208 
JG 77, JG 5, JG 7 - 
Maj. Theodor Weissenberger 7 
208 
JG z.b.v., JG 77, JG 5, JG 6, JG 7 - 
Hptm. Hermann Segatz 7 
40 
JG 51, JG 26, JG 5, JG 1 - 
Hptm. Johannes Naumann 7 
34 
JG 26, JG 6, JG 7 - 
Ofw. Albert "Adi" Böckl 7 
12 
JG 26, Kdo Nowotny, JG 7 5x B-17, 1x B24, 1x Halifax 
Oblt. Karl-Heinz Kapp 7 
12 
JG 27 - 
Lt. Hannes Löffler 7 
11 
JG 27 - 
Ofw. Eberhard Kroker 7 
9+ 
JG 302, JG 300 - 
Fw. Georg Schanz 7 
9 
JG 27 - 
Lt. Willi Hallenberger 7 
8 
JG 51,JG 302 - 
Ofw. Herbert Stephan 7 
8 
JG 302 - 
Obst. Hermann Graf 6 
212 
JG 11,JG 51,JG 52,JGr.50,E.Gr.Ost 3x B-17, 1x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS, 1x Viermot 
Maj. Walter Höckner 6 
68 
JG 52, JG 77, JG 26, JG 1, JG 4 5x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS 
Oblt. Wilhelm Hofmann 6 
44 
JG 26 2x B-17, 1x B-17 e.V., 2x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS 
Hptm. Wolfgang Kosse 6 
28 
JG 26, JG 5, Sturmstaffel 1, JG 3 3x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 1x B-24 
Oblt. Artur Beese 6 
22 
JG 26 4x B-17, 2x B-24 
Hptm. Franz Schall 5 
133 
JG 52, Kdo Nowotny, JG 7 2x B-17, 1x B-24, 3x Lancaster 
Lt. Gerhard Bärsdorf 5 
7 
JG Hermann, JG 300 2x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 2x B-24 

top 50 or so. more then half flew only the 109. others flew both. happy hunting


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 16, 2011)

Not having made a close analysis of the sources provided I can only offer an impression of what I am seeing.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the matter under discussion is which is the better bomber destroyer.

Perhaps the Bf109 destroyed more bombers but was not the most efficient bomber destroyer.
Perhaps the Fw190 destroyed less bombers but was more efficient at doing so and was a "better" bomber destroyer than the Bf109.

Freeman in the Mighty Eighth clearly states that the heavily armed and armored Fw190s were the most effective.
Elsewhere I recall reading that the bomber crews most feared the heavily armed twin engined fighters.
I don't recall reading anything indicating that the Bf109 was feared more than any other attacker.


In regard to the actual topic of this thread.

In the absence of evidence that the USAAF/USAF statistics provided by Jabberwocky are based on flawed methodology:

The statistics indicate that a crewman has better a chance of survival flying missions in a B-24.

The statistics do not indicate that a crewman has a better chance of survival in a B-24 when under attack.

The vast majority of opinions I have read from participants in the ETO bomber force and of postwar writers conclude that the B-17 was a much more survivable aircraft when under attack and the crew was more likely to survive than in a B-24.

These questions remain and may never be capable of being answered:

Was the USAAF/USAF methodology flawed?

Did the extra speed of the B-24 significantly reduce the time of exposure to attack to make it a statistically safer aircraft to fly missions?

Did the greater numbers of B-24s than B-17s, and the time and type of missions they flew skew the USAAF/USAF statistics to indicate the B-24 was a safer aircraft for a crewman?

I think I would still rather be on a B-17 than on a B-24 flying missions in the ETO. Getting halfway down the path to victory is having the confidence in your weapon to prevent fear from compromising your personal performance.


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jun 16, 2011)

the Bf109G-6/U4 had a powerfull punch, 2 Mg 131 MK 108 cannon in the fuse,
and two MK 108 cannons on the wings, a few hits is more then enough to dispatch
a B-17. a few direct hits on a B-24 would be devestating. no doubt though the Fw190
had more armor.

now as to the B-17 / B-24, I think that the B-17 was much more structurally sound then
the B-24. theres lots of youtube footage of both getting hit by 109s 190s. seems the 
B-24 survivability was not as good as the B-17.


----------



## Readie (Jun 16, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> .
> 
> Freeman in the Mighty Eighth clearly states that the heavily armed and armored Fw190s were the most effective.
> Elsewhere I recall reading that the bomber crews most feared the heavily armed twin engined fighters.
> ...



Steve,
I have seen pictures of some damaged B17's that made it home. The damage beggars belief, even one German fighter colliding with in and nearly servering the tail section. Tough airplane or what.
I agree that the FW190 was more capable and rightly feared. Luckily, the Third Reich was on its knees and not able to produce significant numbers of fighters, otherwise the ETO would have been even more of a blood bath.
Cheers
John


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 16, 2011)

P-40K,

Presenting an unsorted list does not make for statistical evidence, nor debate.

For example, the first pilot in your list started his service in 109s, but made the majority of his USAAF heavy bomber kill claims in FW 190s (22 of his 36) and then later flew Me 262s, claiming another five heavy bomber kills while doing so. 

Seems somewhat contrary to your opinion.

Again, please, do you have any statistical evidence is there that the Bf 109 made the "vast majority" of heavy bomber kill claims by the Luftwaffe?


----------



## Readie (Jun 17, 2011)

Jabberwocky said:


> P-40K,
> 
> Presenting an unsorted list does not make for statistical evidence, nor debate.
> 
> ...





I have been mulling over the lists of achievements that have been posted.
I'm coming round to the view that the real heros are not those defending their homeland or those attacking Germany when their own liberty is at stake.
That honour must go to the countries whose position mean they would never be affected by the outcome of the ETO and who selflessly gave their lives to defend the free world by crushing the Nazi machine.
The American nation and the Commonwealth countries.
Cheers
John


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 18, 2011)

".... I'm coming round to the view that the real heros are not those defending their homeland or those attacking Germany when their own liberty is at stake. That honour must go to the countries whose position mean they would never be affected by the outcome of the ETO and who selflessly gave their lives to defend the free world by crushing the Nazi machine. The American nation and the Commonwealth countries ..."

This is absolutely the truth of the matter. We could also speak of the heroism of the _English Speaking World_ - roughly the same as - "The American nation and the Commonwealth countries ...".

In today's troubled world - the true democracies - 'the english speaking world' comprising a large measure of the whole - needs to start thinking this way. In the end it is the heroism of Christian Democracies - secure enough to embrace diversity and open-mindedness - and yet remain resolute to Christian democratic traditions - that are all that has stood between the The Evil Empire and The Free World - and now stand between militant Islam and The West.

Canada went from nothing (militarily speaking) in September 1939 to the third largest AF - fourth largest navy - well equipped - mechanized army in May, 1945. We left most our "mechanization" behind in Holland and Belgium. Came home and created the Baby Boom. In 5 years our military had gone back to where it was (but with massive amounts of great experience). Heroes come to help. Ask nothing. Risk their lives. Fight hard. Win. Go home. Hard for the USA to have done in 1945 though - Europe needed The Marshall Plan. That too was HEROIC.

MM


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 18, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> In today's troubled world - the true democracies - 'the english speaking world' comprising a large measure of the whole - needs to start thinking this way. In the end it is the heroism of Christian Democracies - secure enough to embrace diversity and open-mindedness - and yet remain resolute to Christian democratic traditions - that are all that has stood between the The Evil Empire and The Free World - and now stand between militant Islam and The West.
> 
> MM



I respectfully suggest "Western Democracies" and "Western democratic traditions" are more accurate terms of description.


----------



## Readie (Jun 19, 2011)

'Europe needed The Marshall Plan. That too was HEROIC'

Very true, that alone has secured the peace in Europe since 1945.
In fact, the American dollar has kept the UK afloat through the 'white heat' era of the Wilson government.

Cheers
John


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 19, 2011)

".... I respectfully suggest "Western Democracies" and "Western democratic traditions" are more accurate terms of description."

No quarrel with _that_ phraseology .... 

MM


----------

