Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
I've read the exact same things and therefore my vote goes with the Fortress.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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?
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!
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.
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?
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.
From a force survivability POV perhaps. If the altitude, speed, and bomb load were significantly high enough to negate the advantages of the airframe strength of an equal number of B-17s flying on the same missions.
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 comments about decreased 88mm effective range as the war progresses make sense. It is of course occurring when the percentage of B-24s is increasing compared to B-17s.
Far more B-24s were flying than B-17s while quantities of Flak batteries and Fighters to attack either one of them essentially are the same even when accounting for decreases in effective Flak range. This skews the percentages in favor of the greater number of B-24s. With a decreased effective range of 88mms you would think the percentages would have a larger gap.
This quote is actually from Jabberwocky
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.
Far more B-24s were flying than B-17s while quantities of Flak batteries and Fighters to attack either one of them essentially are the same even when accounting for decreases in effective Flak range. This skews the percentages in favor of the greater number of B-24s. With a decreased effective range of 88mms you would think the percentages would have a larger gap.
On a mission with equal numbers of B-17s and B-24s, I still think I want to be on a B-17. Especially if the below is an accurate majority opinion of Luftwaffe pilots.
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."
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.......
Would transferring into the Medium's and getting on a B-25 be any safer?
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
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.
AccuracyWhy 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?
Arguably, the Lancaster served longer and adapted better than either the B-17 or B-24.
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
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