B-17's toughness (1 Viewer)

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

I can't take credit for "fate is a hunter", that goes to Ernie Gann, it's a great book if you get a chance to read it. It is powerful and fitting. I use it when referring to the bombers because they were such sitting ducks, either by flak or fighters, the odds were not in thier favor. A veteran gave me an original B-24 manual and it had supplimental pages that were added to the emergency procedures. A .25 cent round vs. losing a $300,000 airplane seems to make sense to me :)

jim
 
Good point, but do you see any difference between the B-17 and the B-24 with regard to the likelihood to receive damage?

area of operations would make a greater difference than comparing the planes side by side.
The area over Europe had more flak and AA.
Taking the weather paterns into account, usually bombers scrambling home after an attack were left flying into a head wind.
You might notice a more significant difference between bomber groups stationed out of England vs those stationed in southern Europe.
I've also seen examples where the B-24 dropped supplies on troops which would suggest the nature of those missions was not as "dangerous" as those over Germany.
You can post stats, but you have to dissect them a bit further to understand what they mean.

Many of you know that.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back