Glider
Captain
Nice article
B-17's toughness
- Thread starter ralphwiggum
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
Hi Mike,
Actually, you are very good at connecting the real-world chain of events with statistics, and you have found a possible systematical bias that might make the B-17 appear worse than it perhaps was
We have been discussing this thread for the third time on this forum (after it had already been posted and discussed on another forum before), and in all these discussions no-one pointed out the results of a survivable crash in England until you came along!
Very good out-of-the-box thinking here, you found the factor all of us had missed!
Henning (HoHun)
Thanks, I am humbled by your response!
Though I must say, as I did in a previous discussion. If I were a commander, I would want B-24's. They are the better weapon. But if I was a part of the crew, I would want my butt in a B-17 !
seesul
Senior Master Sergeant
ditto Mike!
One point I want to make.
In what order the bomber divisions usually flew? The point division often attracted more LW fighters than those behind. Also time to time AA slackened during the attack because of hits into AA positions and all the dust bombing generated.
Juha
In what order the bomber divisions usually flew? The point division often attracted more LW fighters than those behind. Also time to time AA slackened during the attack because of hits into AA positions and all the dust bombing generated.
Juha
drgondog
Major
Juha - the divisions rotated positions every mission, basically. The wings within the Divisions also rotated positions withing the Task Force alignments, and Bomb Groups rotated within the Wings.
While LW may have attacked lead bomb groups in 1943, the arrival of target escort capability with first P-38s and then Mustangs dictated that the LW controllers search for 'openings'.
The last three poundings of the 8th AF were May 12, July 7 and September 27. All involved skilled directions by the controllers to attack a bomb wing or in the case of Gottingen on September 27th, an unescorted bomb group - which had a gap in fighter coverage.
Hello Drgondog
Thanks for div position info.
Yep, in early March 44 during the first main attack on Berlin there opened a wide gap between the lead and the following division and LW controllers directed a devastating frontal attack on the second division, which front was at that moment protected only by 8 USAAF fighters, IIRC.
Juha
Thanks for div position info.
Yep, in early March 44 during the first main attack on Berlin there opened a wide gap between the lead and the following division and LW controllers directed a devastating frontal attack on the second division, which front was at that moment protected only by 8 USAAF fighters, IIRC.
Juha
Early in the European War there were more B17s that B24s. This was when we suffered the heaviest losses, 1943 and early 1944. Also if you look at individual missions there were a number of occasions when the B24s were used in a diversionary manner rather than the main attack force. I suspect this is because of the difference in speed of the two different types.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The B-24 was operational from June 42 onwards with the U.S. military, but was in the ETO with the RAF as early as 1941. The B-24 had higher production numbers than the B-17 (18,482 versus 12,731) and served in every theater of operations across the globe.
The B-17 did drop a higher amound of ordinance in Europe than the B-24 did, but the B-24 was used for more precision bombing missions.
The B-24 was also faster than the B-17 with a longer range. You'll also find that the Liberator was used by the U.S. Navy as a long range recon anti-sub warfare as well.
wheelsup_cavu
1st Sergeant
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Affirmative
Burmese Bandit
Senior Airman
- 474
- Dec 5, 2008
Two points.
I have read many times that it was the hydraulic control system in the B-24 that made it easy to kill, as the hydraulic fluid caught fire very easily. Whereas the B-17 used an electrical system.
Is this true?
Furthermore, is there anywhere a statistical table showing number of aircrew deaths per combat flying hour in B-24s versus number of aircrew deaths per combat flying hour in B-17s?
I have read many times that it was the hydraulic control system in the B-24 that made it easy to kill, as the hydraulic fluid caught fire very easily. Whereas the B-17 used an electrical system.
Is this true?
Furthermore, is there anywhere a statistical table showing number of aircrew deaths per combat flying hour in B-24s versus number of aircrew deaths per combat flying hour in B-17s?
seesul
Senior Master Sergeant
If am I not wrong, all the B-17 control systems (ailerons,rudder,elevator) were mechanicaly controled.
Only the flaps were electrical.
Only the flaps were electrical.
Airbone Bunny
Airman
- 24
- May 12, 2009
My impression is that the B17 was tougher than the B24... however I also admit that I don't know how well statistics can back that claim up.
Perhaps I am wrong but my understanding is that the ratio of losses/sorties is based on quantity of sorties, but says nothing about "quality" of sorties, how dangerous or risky those sorties were.
I know that we should assume that both planes B17 and B24 were used in risky missions, in an even way. However, there were some cases of very risky missions that, for whatever reason, were carried by only one type of plane. One example is the bombing of Ploesti oilfields. As far as I know, the 177 bombers involved were all B24, and the loss rate in that single mission went out of the charts (over 50 planes lost and over 50 additional planes heavily damaged). My impression is that missions like Ploesti, with very high loss rates, can have an oversized impact on general loss/sorties statistics.
What I mean is: instead of talking just about loss ratios and quantity of sorties, perhaps it would make sense to talk a little about "quality of missions".
Would it be possible to say one type of plane carried more of those "very deadly missions"? Could it be said that B17 units carried more risky missions than B24 units, or viceversa? That B17 were selected for tougher targets than B17 than B24, or viceversa? Can the available data allow us to make that kind of affirmations?
Perhaps I am wrong but my understanding is that the ratio of losses/sorties is based on quantity of sorties, but says nothing about "quality" of sorties, how dangerous or risky those sorties were.
I know that we should assume that both planes B17 and B24 were used in risky missions, in an even way. However, there were some cases of very risky missions that, for whatever reason, were carried by only one type of plane. One example is the bombing of Ploesti oilfields. As far as I know, the 177 bombers involved were all B24, and the loss rate in that single mission went out of the charts (over 50 planes lost and over 50 additional planes heavily damaged). My impression is that missions like Ploesti, with very high loss rates, can have an oversized impact on general loss/sorties statistics.
What I mean is: instead of talking just about loss ratios and quantity of sorties, perhaps it would make sense to talk a little about "quality of missions".
Would it be possible to say one type of plane carried more of those "very deadly missions"? Could it be said that B17 units carried more risky missions than B24 units, or viceversa? That B17 were selected for tougher targets than B17 than B24, or viceversa? Can the available data allow us to make that kind of affirmations?
diddyriddick
Staff Sergeant
Here is, perhaps, another fly in the ointment. If memory serves, B-24s of the 15th(?) Air Force bombed Europe from Africa because of their longer range, and later from occupied southern Europe. I wonder if these missions are taken into the equation. It seems to me that flak and fighter opposition over Italy, Austria, and Czechoslovakia would be markedly less than the heart of the Reich.
That is true. The B-24 was considered a hydraulic bomber while many of the B-17 systems were electrical. Bomb doors and a number of other small systems on the Fortress were electrically powered rather than hydro. Hydraulic lines were more vulnerable to damage and presented a higher fire risk. The B-17 also used a corrugated liner detail within the wing that significantly strengthened it. The Davis wing of the B-24 generated high lift at low drag, but it traded that for some stability. The B-17 did not suffer from the stability issue and was likely to be more controllable under a damaged condition.
I don't know if I've ever seen the second question answered anywhere.
It was a B-25 in the movie, but the story line was loosely based on the Lady Be Good B-24 incident.
dragonandhistail
Airman
By my avatar it is clear which aircraft I prefer. I think the B-17 had much better PR than the 24 did earlier on and that created a strong perception in the public and with bomber crews about which aircraft was better. The B-24 was much more versatile, faster, heavier bombload, and served in every theater until the end. It was made in record numbers as well. That speaks volumes. Is there a detailed study on the subject? I have been reading both Flying Fortress by Jablonski and Log of the Liberators by Birdsall to get some perspective. Can anyone steer me to an academic study on the subject? THis would be a great military channel comparison show. If you guys have real stats from documented sources please send them to me.
Respectfully,
Respectfully,
jimh
Senior Airman
I'm lucky enough to be typed in both the B-24 and B-17. The B-17 represents the epitome of 1930's technology. It is overbuilt, the structure resembles a bridge and is very labor intensive. There were only alittle over 12,000 B-17's built, compared to the 24 at alittle over 18,000. The B-17 looks more like an airliner than a bomber, there is ALOT of wasted space in the airframe. The 24 was designed around the payload and mission. Lets break down the systems.
B-17
cable driven controls
cable driven propellor governors
electric landing gear and tailwheel
electric bombay doors
electric flaps
1200hp 9cyl wright engines burning 200gph (50 per engine per hour)
Hydraulic Brakes
Hydraulic cowl flaps
B-24
cable driven controls
electric propellor governors
hydraulic landing gear
hydraulic bombay doors
hydraulic flaps
hydraulic brakes
1200hp 14cyl pratts burning 200gph (50 per engine per hour)
electric cowl flaps
The B-24 was designed around the misgivings of the B-17, nosewheel vs tailwheel, more bomb load with aerodynamic bombay doors, more gas, and a more efficient airfoil. The same can be said about the 29 being an improvement on the 24. Technology was advancing at a blistering pace. The argument of which airplane was tougher will persist until we are all gone. I've seen photos of B-24s that should have never made it back and I've seen photos of B-17s folding up quicker than a B-24. Fate is a hunter and on any given mission your number was up. Which one flies the best? They both have thier own personalities. The 24 offers the ease of nosewheel controlability but it suffers greatly on overall stability. The 17 has a giant rudder that acts like a sail in stiff wind, making takeoff and landing a chore but it flies hands off when trimmed up. In the end they both did thier job above and beyond. The 17 is by far easier to work on, where as the 24 is system intensive and a hydraulic leak is more of a PITA than a detriment. Every system has a back up for a back up on both airplanes. There are cranks for the gear, flaps, bombay doors. There is a reserve of fluid in the hydraulic systems for braking (no matter if the system is shot up or not there is still a source of fluid). There are two sets of cables for the flight controls. Here is an interesting tidbit...the manual specifys that if for any reason a main tire is flattened after take off (flak or enemy fire) the flight engineer is to shoot the other tire and flatten it so it doesn't swerve off the runway.
jim
B-17
cable driven controls
cable driven propellor governors
electric landing gear and tailwheel
electric bombay doors
electric flaps
1200hp 9cyl wright engines burning 200gph (50 per engine per hour)
Hydraulic Brakes
Hydraulic cowl flaps
B-24
cable driven controls
electric propellor governors
hydraulic landing gear
hydraulic bombay doors
hydraulic flaps
hydraulic brakes
1200hp 14cyl pratts burning 200gph (50 per engine per hour)
electric cowl flaps
The B-24 was designed around the misgivings of the B-17, nosewheel vs tailwheel, more bomb load with aerodynamic bombay doors, more gas, and a more efficient airfoil. The same can be said about the 29 being an improvement on the 24. Technology was advancing at a blistering pace. The argument of which airplane was tougher will persist until we are all gone. I've seen photos of B-24s that should have never made it back and I've seen photos of B-17s folding up quicker than a B-24. Fate is a hunter and on any given mission your number was up. Which one flies the best? They both have thier own personalities. The 24 offers the ease of nosewheel controlability but it suffers greatly on overall stability. The 17 has a giant rudder that acts like a sail in stiff wind, making takeoff and landing a chore but it flies hands off when trimmed up. In the end they both did thier job above and beyond. The 17 is by far easier to work on, where as the 24 is system intensive and a hydraulic leak is more of a PITA than a detriment. Every system has a back up for a back up on both airplanes. There are cranks for the gear, flaps, bombay doors. There is a reserve of fluid in the hydraulic systems for braking (no matter if the system is shot up or not there is still a source of fluid). There are two sets of cables for the flight controls. Here is an interesting tidbit...the manual specifys that if for any reason a main tire is flattened after take off (flak or enemy fire) the flight engineer is to shoot the other tire and flatten it so it doesn't swerve off the runway.
jim
