Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
I've read the exact same things and therefore my vote goes with the Fortress.
As a crewman in the ETO, would you rather serve in a B-24 or a B-17?
- Thread starter michaelmaltby
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I've read the exact same things and therefore my vote goes with the Fortress.
Lighthunmust
Banned
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!
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
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.
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
Staff Sergeant
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.
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
Banned
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.
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.
Typically using "unfriendly" language ending with lots of these ! and
doesn't come across well.
Last edited:
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
I'd rather be in a Lancaster chaps.
Cheers
John
Cheers
John
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."
"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
Banned
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
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.......
It probably will need a lot more looking at.......
Lighthunmust
Banned
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.
- Thread starter
- #32
michaelmaltby
Colonel
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
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
Lighthunmust
Banned
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.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
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.
" 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
Banned
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.
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?
Last edited:
Accuracy
- Thread starter
- #38
michaelmaltby
Colonel
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 .....
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 .....
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
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
Banned
".... 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!
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.
Last edited:
