As a crewman in the ETO, would you rather serve in a B-24 or a B-17? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules



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.
 
Last edited:
".... 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
 
".... 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

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.
 
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
 
".... 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:
 

Attachments

  • lancaster_cockpit.JPG
    lancaster_cockpit.JPG
    40.5 KB · Views: 77
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.
 
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 ?
 
".... 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:

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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back