B-17, B-24, or Lancaster

[plan_D]

bomber, if the production team looked solely at what the crew wanted in a plane then nothing would get built. If Consolidated aimed to build the B-24 for suvivability the production run would be much lower than it actually was because armour takes more time to build. As harsh as it sounds, in a war like World War II, no one cares what the man on the ground wants. The country wants as much firepower raining down on the enemy as possible. The U.S had the manpower to throw everything in gung-ho, there was no time for precision and safety.

"if the B 17 was produced in the numbers of the B 24 the amount of plane for combat would have been a lot better"

You've completely missed the point. The B-17 took longer to build than the B-24! If the U.S would have built B-17s instead of B-24s, there'd be less bombers coming off the production lines.

The B-24 dropped more tonnage on Europe and Asia than the B-17. The B-24 sunk more tonnage than the B-17. There were more B-24s in action than the B-17.

The U.S wanted to win the war, and to win the war they need to bring all their ordnance down on Germany. The B-24 carried more of the fire to Germany than the B-17 did.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The total numbers dont matter as he's using percentages and type..

So if you had 1 x B17 and 1 x B24

The B17 would last 35% longer in a combat environment than a B24..

And so on with those percenatges...

He didn't indicate that - he came up with a 35% higher combat life but didn't indicate what that was based on. Sorties? Missions? Aircraft numbers (B-17 vs. B-24)

The real night and day comes from the B 17 and the B 24 can compare that , and as i study and read the b 17 was by far the better warbird some of the reasons , i think are worth looking at.
The b 17 easier to maintain and there for more available for combat
The b 17 spent half as much time in the modification centers thus read for action in shorter time
b 17 combat sorties versus the b24,results in 40 % savings in personnel and material
Statistcal comparisons done at loss rate per sortie shows that the b 17 had a 35 % longer combat life than the b 24
if the B 17 was produced in the numbers of the B 24 the amount of plane for combat would have been a lot better

There is no doubt the B-17 was the betting flying aircraft but I'd like to know where you're getting your numbers from. As far as the B-17 being easier to maintain, I'd like to know where you're getting that from as well.. Both aircraft operated the same, the B-24 was a bit more complicated becuase of the powered turrets, but as far as maintainability, there shouldn't be much of a difference.

The U.S wanted to win the war, and to win the war they need to bring all their ordnance down on Germany. The B-24 carried more of the fire to Germany than the B-17 did.

BINGO!

The table below summarizes all losses in the ETO during the war:

Aircraft Type Number Lost
B-17 4,754
B-24 2,112
P-47 1,043
P-38 451
P-51 2,201
Total 10,561

These figures came from the Army's statistical data files on losses. Now this does not include any of the other type medium aircraft and light aircraft (B-25, B-26, L-4, AT-6 etc), the 9th, 12th and 11th tactical Air Force losses and other commands. It is now easy to see how over 30,000 American airmen were POWs of the European Axis during the war.



Here's some great info...
Maximum reported B-17 B-24 bomb loads - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Below is a chart - factor in the total numbers of aircraft built (B-17 vs. B-24) and the B-24 isn't as bad as made out to be....

BTW - My uncle was in a B-24 crash, the only survivor of an 11 man crew. He always said that training of the crew was the cause of his mishap (the pilot had an engine failing, he shut down the wrong engine...

 

[syscom3]

He should go back to the debate we had earlier this year regarding the production rates of the Lanc vs B24. By the end of 1944, we were building enough B24's every few day's to cover the "statistical" differential in loss's. And thats assuming his figures are correct;y interpreted.

And of course he didnt look at the payload vs range issue in the PTO between the -24 and -17.

Nor that the -24 was superior to the -17 in antisubmarine operations.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Yep! And in the training mishaps you would also have to look into flight hours and compare them. Another factor during the training is instrument flying and which aircraft did more....

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

that very well might just cover it...

If however I was young man with the prospect of having to climb into one I might very well answer the same question "Make it tough enough to get me there, bomb the target and get home (Quality), bugger the expence (Cost) and deliver ? Oh there's no rush (Time)"

As someone who has crewed aircraft into combat I can say I did not care about the cost or how easy it was to make an aircraft as long as did its job and got me home.

As a whole the B-24 got the job done and got its crews home. Yes she was shot down but what aircraft was not shot down over the Reich?

 

[syscom3]

I have an announcement to make.

After reading more carefully the USSBS, they make a point of saying that the US 1000 and 2000 pounder bombs were not capable of causing destructive damage to many industrial type tools and machinery. And it seems only the brit 4000 pounders were capable of doing lasting damage.

Therefore, since the -17 and -24 couldnt carry those bombs....... I will have to admit the Lanc would take a notch up over the -24 as best bomber in the ETO.

But, the -24 is still better than the Lanc in the PTO since there werent any industrial targets requiring a bomb like that.

 

[lonestarman63]

USA, AAF Chief Unit Traing Division , Assistant Cheif of Staff. Training . Letter to AC/AS Training dated 13 NOV 1944 The b 24 was the most extravagant killer of any airplane AAF from pearl to sept of 44 the b 24 accdents in the US resulted in 2188 deaths in the first 9 months of 1944 b24 did 6% total flying in the U S but had 26% of all death , They flew 5% less than the b 17 and had 105 % more deaths and 85% more wreaks
Had the b 24 been as good as the b 17 from pearl to sept of 1944 we would have had 230 aircraft 904 more airmen and saved about 60,000,000 that is a lot of money and crews
8)

 

[syscom3]

USA, AAF Chief Unit Traing Division , Assistant Cheif of Staff. Training . Letter to AC/AS Training dated 13 NOV 1944 The b 24 was the most extravagant killer of any airplane AAF from pearl to sept of 44 the b 24 accdents in the US resulted in 2188 deaths in the first 9 months of 1944 b24 did 6% total flying in the U S but had 26% of all death , They flew 5% less than the b 17 and had 105 % more deaths and 85% more wreaks
Had the b 24 been as good as the b 17 from pearl to sept of 1944 we would have had 230 aircraft 904 more airmen and saved about 60,000,000 that is a lot of money and crews
8)

1) The B17's were withdrawn from service in the PTO in late 1942 because they couldnt do the job.

2) 230 B24's was 1 week output in Nov 1944. Big deal.

3) 904 airmen? We were losing that number in combat every week. Whats a few more from training accidents.

4) $60,000,000 was a drop in the bucket for a war that was costing billions every year.

 

[lonestarman63]

8) The b 17 easier to maintain and there for more available for combat
The b 17 spent half as much time in the modification centers thus read for action in shorter time
b 17 combat sorties versus the b24,results in 40 % savings in personnel and material
Statistcal comparisons done at loss rate per sortie shows that the b 17 had a 35 % longer combat life than the b 24
if the B 17 was produced in the numbers of the B 24 the amount of plane for combat would have been a lot better8)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

8) The b 17 easier to maintain and there for more available for combat

Are you quoting General Craig (I bet he worked on a lot of B-17s, Generals are really good at engine changes, especially in the middle of the night) or a maintenance guy who actually worked on the aircraft because I could assure you that if the -17 was easier to maintain it was only marginal..

The b 17 spent half as much time in the modification centers thus read for action in shorter time

Agree but the 24 was built quicker and outpaced the -17 in production by 1944

b 17 combat sorties versus the b24,results in 40 % savings in personnel and material
Statistcal comparisons done at loss rate per sortie shows that the b 17 had a 35 % longer combat life than the b 24
if the B 17 was produced in the numbers of the B 24 the amount of plane for combat would have been a lot better8)

You given no proof of that - I shown numbers that indicate even with the higher accident rate, the -17 was only marginally safer than the B-24, and the B-17 wasn't even used in the Pacific!!! I think someone needs to do some homework!!!

 

[lonestarman63]

1) The B17's were withdrawn from service in the PTO in late 1942 because they couldnt do the job.

2) 230 B24's was 1 week output in Nov 1944. Big deal.

3) 904 airmen? We were losing that number in combat every week. Whats a few more from training accidents.

4) $60,000,000 was a drop in the bucket for a war that was costing billions every year.

1)That was just in the Us before they got to operations

2)904 airmen was the highest of any Us aircraft .

3) $60,000,000 is stil a lot of resoures no matter how you slice it

4) we were talking about ETO8)

 

[lonestarman63]

they were used in the pacific early on till late 42

 

[FLYBOYJ]

READ THIS PLEASE!

The B-24 was phased out of the AAF during December 1945; evidently maintenance costs were high. A WWII B-17, B-24 mechanic told me that the B-24 was easier to work on because its tricycle landing gear gave it a level ground attitude. The AAF, then USAF, kept the B-17 in squadron service until 1956; it was evidently still used as a bomber during 1948, 49 when the movie Twelve O'Clock High was filmed, with AF active duty B-17s being used during filming. In the Korean War the B-17 served in SAR and recce units. The navy used their B-24/PB4Y-1s until at least 1953.

B-17 and B-24 Discourse

 

[FLYBOYJ]

they were used in the pacific early on till late 42

And were phased out becuase they didn't have the range or bombload to complete the required mission in the Pacific...

 

[pbfoot]

I'LL wager there are more craters out there made by T6s and Stearmans then 904

 

[lonestarman63]

they were phased out because of range ,not saying were not , i was talking about the ETO 8)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

8) The b 17 easier to maintain and there for more available for combat
The b 17 spent half as much time in the modification centers thus read for action in shorter time
b 17 combat sorties versus the b24,results in 40 % savings in personnel and material
Statistcal comparisons done at loss rate per sortie shows that the b 17 had a 35 % longer combat life than the b 24
if the B 17 was produced in the numbers of the B 24 the amount of plane for combat would have been a lot better8)

And I see you're basing this on this report....

https://research.au.af.mil/papers/ay1997/acsc/97-0609C.pdf#search="B-17 vs B-24 losses"

But yet look What Hap Arnold said...

Briefly, the situation is this: The B-17 is a fine, heavy bomber which has been lavishly built up by the Press with the result, we believe, that not only the public but the personnel in the Army Air Forces think of it as an airplane far superior to any other heavy bomber. At the same time, our industry is just beginning to put out large numbers of B-24's. Even in its condition today, without the (lower) turret, which may be available in quantity by the first of the year, the B-24 has shown up in proving ground tests as a very fine heavy bomber with a greater range that the B-17.

Brereton has used this same B-24 with German and Italian opposition and has had a remarkable degree of success in air combat. Likewise, Butler's small B-24 unit has been highly successful against the Japs in the Aleutians. It is unfortunate at this time that neither of those theaters has had the publicity enjoyed by the B-17 in the United Kingdom. The net result is a false public impression that the B-17 is a fighting airplane far superior to any other heavy bomber in the world, because of the briefness of B-24 combat experiences and lack of publicity for its successes in battle.

We find ourselves faced with what may be a real and acute problem in psychology and in leadership.

—Gen H. H. Arnold

 

[FLYBOYJ]

they were phased out because of range ,not saying were not , i was talking about the ETO 8)

OK - My error

 

[FLYBOYJ]

There is no argument the B-17 was the betting flying aircraft. The B-24 had the advantage in range and bomb load. The whole purpose was to deliver bombs to the target and a "pick-up truck" was needed to to that and that is why the B-24 was produced in the quantity. The report I posted gives a very good analysis of the aircraft showing concerns by members of the 8th AF with regards to the B-24. At the same time they adjusted well in the Pacific and with the RAF. I do rate the B-17 a betting flying aircraft, I rate the B-24 as the betting bombing platform and that's what the whole ball game was about.

Battle damge - the B-17 takes it. Longevity - also to the B-17.

 

[syscom3]

The reason so many B24's were in the modification centers was because THEY WERE BEING BUILT SO FAST AND IN SUCH NUMBERS FOR SO MANY END USERS THAT THEY HAD TO BE MODIFIED TO TAKE THE LATEST AND GREATEST MODIFICATIONS!