Glider
Captain
Nice article
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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)
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 !
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
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.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.
Weren't those the PB4Y variants ?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.
AffirmativeWeren't those the PB4Y variants ?
Wheelsup
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?
Some very interesting points within, notably functionality and loss rate
Boeing B-17G Flying Fortess verus The Consolidated B-24 Liberator
Edit: that Richard Baseheart film though, I've seen it and I'm sure it was based around a B-25...
"Fate is a hunter" man, that is one heck of a quote / saying !!!
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. That is awesome, laughed my butt off on that one! From which aircraft manual, 17 or 24?