Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 43,254
- Mar 26, 2007
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yes i take your word for it but none the less it did very long range combat flights. The B-24. None other then perhaps a B-29 was able.As mentioned, it was a handful to fly under ideal conditions compared to comparable types.
The Davis wing provided several advantages, however, if it became damaged (flak, cannon fire, etc.), the aircraft became very difficult to manage.
One of the surprising facts is that the Germans did NOT use contact fuses and that it was a deliberate decision not to do so. By the time it was adopted the situation was hopeless.No argument with a direct hit from an 88mm that explodes on contact, most damage from flak was from shells that exploded in the air which then becomes a function of accuracy, tightness of the formation and statistics.
As far as fighters go the main enemy was definitely light flak. The attached paper describes the USAAF 8th problems with flak and their counter measures in great detail.Have to disagree with your premise about losses and the "real killer of bombers."
If you look at the US Navy, let's take just the Hellcat.There were one-third more losses to AAA than to enemy fighters and about the same losses to enemy fighters as operational losses. The biggest single hit was AAA.
Look at the Statistical Digest of World War Two, Table 159: Airplane Losses on Combat Missions in the ETO (since we are in the ETO).
Enemy aircraft and AAA had almost the same number of losses (2,452 for enemy aircraft and 2,439 for AAA) for heavy bombers; 131 for enemy aircraft and 4,92 for AAA for medium bombers (who operated inside the flak envelope almost exclusively); and 1,691 to enemy aircraft and 2,449 to AAA for fighters (with 1,184 to operational losses).
From the above, flak was the best killer of airplanes and was equal to fighters as a bomber killer for heavy bombers and the best at it for everything else.
I flat disagree with "loss rates go up with time spent in hostile airspace." This was WWII, not modern warfare. The loss rates went up if they got attacked, sure, but time spent in hostile airspace didn't mean you would get attacked. If depended largely on here you were and what you were doing. If you were in a Mosquito on a PR run at altitude 30,000+ feet) and at speed (300+ mph), you were likely not going to get attacked. If you were in an A-20 at 15,000 feet by yourself and not headed for a well-defended target, you were unlikely to be attacked unless someone chanced across you. But, if you were in a large bombers stream headed for a well-defended target, you were very unlikely NOT to be attacked.
I disagree with "loss rates went up with distance" and "loss rates went up with weather." I have spent about 20 years around WWII warbirds. Their engines are reliable to the point of being almost laughably reliable. I worked the Planes of Fame Airshow for 10+ years. We ran 50+ sorties a day for 3 days once a year. That's 1,500+ sorties. We had a grand total of 5 aborts during those 10+ years. One was a Corsair who couldn't get one wing to unfold (hydraulic issue) and one was a flat tire. The other 3 were engine-related before takeoff. That's a total of 0.2% or less engine-related issues. Note, once running, we had one precautionary landing due to engine. That's 0.067% airborne engine issues. We also had one Curtiss-Electric prop get stuck in cruise pitch due to a failed electric brush setup. It was easily fixed once the parts were located. And that's for 70-year old engines. Imagine how much better they were when they were relatively new engines.
Weather is a factor only when it is extreme. Flying in clouds won't make you crash unless you have a midair, which is unlikely in formation but more likely in combat. Flying in a thunderstorm might well get you killed, but there is almost no excuse for flying into a thunderstorm. Only idiots do that and they generally don't survive to continue being idiots.
The B-24 was not easy to produce, that is one of the great myths of WWII. It was actually more expensive that the B-17.Yes i take your word for it but none the less it did very long range combat flights. The B-24. None other then perhaps a B-29 was able.
In the end the usa played the numbers game like no other fighting nation on this level of airplane evolution. Not germany japan soviets could field the masses of numbers of the frames
Yes it is not a tiger tank. But they are many. Shoot one 5 friends will come to morn.
Its not the definite combat plane, but an A-Ford.
Quite good and comperatively easy to produce. In fast fast numbers.
In a time when life was not that valuable and many crew was being trained it is not difficult to see why they stuck with it. And had succes.
The nose turret was added starting with the H/G models, but no, adding the turret did not increase the crew complement to 11. Only lead aircraft flew with a radio operator at the radio full time which did make for 11 men. On all other aircraft the radio operator doubled as a gunner, typically the nose gunner but sometimes a waist gunner. The radios would be set up so that the pilot and co-pilot could monitor the command frequency. The radio operator would only go the console as needed. Same situation with the flight engineer who was normally the top turret gunner, but sometimes a waist gunner. See the attached aircraft load list. A/C #46 in this instance was 42-64388 which was a J-15-CF.Also depends on what variant of bomber is being discussed - this would fall under "familiarity".
The early B-24s had ten crewmen, but from the early-J variant onward, had eleven as standard.
This was because the B-24 got a nose turret manned by a dedicated gunner. Before that, the Bombardier handled the flexible 50's in the greenhouse.
Interesting! Would you please provide the reference for these documents?One of the surprising facts is that the Germans did NOT use contact fuses and that it was a deliberate decision not to do so. By the time it was adopted the situation was hopeless.
The first PRODUCTION LINE models with the nose turret were the -The nose turret was added starting with the H/G models,
I am aware of the modified D models with nose turrets - I should have been more specific - but was replying to the quote implying the J model began the nose turrets.The first PRODUCTION LINE models with the nose turret were the -
Ford built B-24H-1 delivered from 30 June 1943 followed by
North American built B-24G-1 (26th production B-24G model to come off the line) followed by
Consolidated San Diego B-24J in Aug 1943 and
Consolidated Fort Worth B-24J in Sept 1943.
BUT nose turrets were fitted to B-24D models at Modification Centers from late 1942, those being:-
For bombers intended for the Pacific / CBI units:-
Hawaiian Air Depot both in Hawaii & Australia (both conversions of new build and combat veteran aircraft starting Nov 1942. 322+); and
Oklahoma City Air Depot (98+ with most to the Pacific but 4 to 11th AF & 6 to 14th AF. First completion June 1943.)
Anti-submarine warfare
Fairfield Air Depot (prototype only completed June 1943)
Middletown Air Depot, Pennsylvania (62 conversions - tail turret moved to nose)
Most of these went to 479th & 48th ASG in 8th AF initially until the ASW task was moved to the USN at which point they were reallocated.
OM460 | 11-Apr-43 | HB | 1st Pilot | Officer | 1 | |
OM460 | 11-Apr-43 | HB | 2nd Pilot | Officer or Airman | 1 | |
OM460 | 11-Apr-43 | HB | Nav (B) | Officer | 1 | |
OM460 | 11-Apr-43 | HB | Bomb Aimer | Officer or Airman | 1 | |
OM460 | 11-Apr-43 | HB | Wireless Air Gunner | Officer or Airman | 3 | |
OM460 | 11-Apr-43 | HB | Flight Engineer/Fitter IIE - Air Gunner | Officer or Airman | 1 | |
OM460 | 11-Apr-43 | HB | Flight Engineer/Fitter IIA - Air Gunner | Airman | 1 | |
OM460 | 11-Apr-43 | HB | Fitter, Armourer/Air Gunner | Airman | 1 | |
OM503 | 1-Jun-44 | HB | 1st Pilot | Officer | 1 | |
OM503 | 1-Jun-44 | HB | 2nd Pilot | Officer or Airman | 1 | |
OM503 | 1-Jun-44 | HB | Navigator | Officer | 1 | |
OM503 | 1-Jun-44 | HB | Air Bomber | Officer or Airman | 1 | |
OM503 | 1-Jun-44 | HB | Wireless Operator Air (G) | Officer or Airman | 1 | |
OM503 | 1-Jun-44 | HB | Wireless Operator Air (E) | Officer or Airman | 1 | |
OM503 | 1-Jun-44 | HB | Air Gunner | Airman | 3 | 2 to be trained in armament duties and the third trained in airframe maintenance duties. |
OM503 | 1-Jun-44 | HB | Flight Engineer/Fitter IIE - Air Gunner | Airman | 1 | |
OM528 | 10-Jul-44 | HB | 1st Pilot | Officer | 1 | |
OM528 | 10-Jul-44 | HB | 2nd Pilot | Officer or Airman | 1 | |
OM528 | 10-Jul-44 | HB | Navigator | Officer | 1 | |
OM528 | 10-Jul-44 | HB | Air Bomber | Officer or Airman | 1 | |
OM528 | 10-Jul-44 | HB | Wireless Operator Air (G) | Officer or Airman | 1 | |
OM528 | 10-Jul-44 | HB | Wireless Operator Air (E) | Officer or Airman | 1 | |
OM528 | 10-Jul-44 | HB | Air Gunner | Airman | 4 | 2 to be trained in armament duties and a third trained in airframe maintenance duties. This requirement cancelled in OM549 |
OM528 | 10-Jul-44 | HB | Flight Engineer/Fitter IIE - Air Gunner | Airman | 1 | |
OM579 | 2-Oct-44 | HB | 1st Pilot | Officer or Airman | 1 | Normally be an Officer |
OM579 | 2-Oct-44 | HB | 2nd Pilot | Officer or Airman | 1 | |
OM579 | 2-Oct-44 | HB | Navigator (Loran Trained) | Officer or Airman | 1 | Normally be an Officer |
OM579 | 2-Oct-44 | HB | Air Bomber (L.A.B. Trained) | Officer or Airman | 1 | |
OM579 | 2-Oct-44 | HB | Wireless Operator Air (G) (Radar Trained) | Officer or Airman | 1 | |
OM579 | 2-Oct-44 | HB | Wireless Operator Air (E) (Radar Trained) | Officer or Airman | 1 | |
OM579 | 2-Oct-44 | HB | Air Gunner | Officer or Airman | 3 | |
OM579 | 2-Oct-44 | HB | Flight Engineer/Fitter IIE - Air Gunner | Airman | 1 | May be officer. One officer per sqn will be provided on establishments. |
OM647 | 28-Dec-44 | HB | 1st Pilot | Officer or Airman | 1 | Normally be an Officer. May be GR trained |
OM647 | 28-Dec-44 | HB | 2nd Pilot | Officer or Airman | 1 | GR trained |
OM647 | 28-Dec-44 | HB | Navigator (Loran Trained) | Officer or Airman | 1 | Normally be an Officer |
OM647 | 28-Dec-44 | HB | Air Bomber (L.A.B. Trained) | Officer or Airman | 1 | |
OM647 | 28-Dec-44 | HB | Wireless Operator Air (G) (Radar Trained) | Officer or Airman | 1 | |
OM647 | 28-Dec-44 | HB | Wireless Operator Air (E) (Radar Trained) | Officer or Airman | 2 | |
OM647 | 28-Dec-44 | HB | Air Gunner | Officer or Airman | 3 | |
OM647 | 28-Dec-44 | HB | Flight Engineer - Air Gunner | Airman | 1 | May be officer. One officer per sqn will be provided on establishments. |
OM647 | 28-Dec-44 | GR/HB | 1st Pilot | Officer or Airman | 1 | Normally be an Officer, GR trained |
OM647 | 28-Dec-44 | GR/HB | 2nd Pilot | Officer or Airman | 1 | GR trained |
OM647 | 28-Dec-44 | GR/HB | Navigator (Loran Trained) | Officer or Airman | 1 | Normally be an Officer |
OM647 | 28-Dec-44 | GR/HB | Air Bomber (L.A.B. Trained) | Officer or Airman | 1 | |
OM647 | 28-Dec-44 | GR/HB | Wireless Operator Air (G) (Radar Trained) | Officer or Airman | 1 | |
OM647 | 28-Dec-44 | GR/HB | Wireless Operator Air (E) (Radar Trained) | Officer or Airman | 2 | |
OM647 | 28-Dec-44 | GR/HB | Air Gunner | Officer or Airman | 3 | |
OM647 | 28-Dec-44 | GR/HB | Flight Engineer - Air Gunner | Airman | 1 | May be officer. One officer per sqn will be provided on establishments. |
OM733 | 26-May-45 | 201 Flt | 1st Pilot | Officer | 1 | |
OM733 | 26-May-45 | 201 Flt | 2nd Pilot | Officer or Airman | 1 | |
OM733 | 26-May-45 | 201 Flt | Navigator | Officer | 1 | |
OM733 | 26-May-45 | 201 Flt | Wireless Operator Air (G) (Radar Trained) | Officer or Airman | 1 | |
OM733 | 26-May-45 | 201 Flt | Wireless Operator Air (E) (Radar Trained) | Officer or Airman | 3 | |
OM733 | 26-May-45 | 201 Flt | Air Gunner | Officer or Airman | 3 | |
OM733 | 26-May-45 | 201 Flt | Flight Engineer | Airman | 1 | May be officer. |
OM757 | 27-Jul-45 | HB | 1st Pilot | Officer or Airman | 1 | Normally be an Officer. May be GR trained |
OM757 | 27-Jul-45 | HB | 2nd Pilot | Officer or Airman | 1 | GR trained |
OM757 | 27-Jul-45 | HB | Navigator (Loran Trained) | Officer or Airman | 1 | Normally be an Officer |
OM757 | 27-Jul-45 | HB | Air Bomber (L.A.B. Trained) | Officer or Airman | 1 | |
OM757 | 27-Jul-45 | HB | Wireless Operator Air (G) (Radar Trained) | Officer or Airman | 1 | |
OM757 | 27-Jul-45 | HB | Wireless Operator Air (E) (Radar Trained) | Officer or Airman | 2 | |
OM757 | 27-Jul-45 | HB | Air Gunner | Officer or Airman | 3 | |
OM757 | 27-Jul-45 | HB | Flight Engineer - Air Gunner | Airman | May be officer. One officer per sqn will be provided on establishments. | |
OM757 | 27-Jul-45 | GR/HB | 1st Pilot | Officer or Airman | 1 | Normally be an Officer, GR trained |
OM757 | 27-Jul-45 | GR/HB | 2nd Pilot | Officer or Airman | 1 | GR trained |
OM757 | 27-Jul-45 | GR/HB | Navigator (Loran Trained) | Officer or Airman | 1 | Normally be an Officer |
OM757 | 27-Jul-45 | GR/HB | Air Bomber (L.A.B. Trained) | Officer or Airman | 1 | |
OM757 | 27-Jul-45 | GR/HB | Wireless Operator Air (G) (Radar Trained) | Officer or Airman | 1 | |
OM757 | 27-Jul-45 | GR/HB | Wireless Operator Air (E) (Radar Trained) | Officer or Airman | 2 | |
OM757 | 27-Jul-45 | GR/HB | Air Gunner | Officer or Airman | 3 | |
OM757 | 27-Jul-45 | GR/HB | Flight Engineer - Air Gunner | Airman | 1 | May be officer. One officer per sqn will be provided on establishments. |
OM757 | 27-Jul-45 | 201 Flt | 1st Pilot | Officer | 1 | |
OM757 | 27-Jul-45 | 201 Flt | 2nd Pilot | Officer or Airman | 1 | |
OM757 | 27-Jul-45 | 201 Flt | Navigator (Loran Trained) | Officer | 1 | |
OM757 | 27-Jul-45 | 201 Flt | Wireless Operator Air (G) (Radar Trained) | Officer or Airman | 1 | |
OM757 | 27-Jul-45 | 201 Flt | Wireless Operator Air (E) (Radar Trained) | Officer or Airman | 3 | |
OM757 | 27-Jul-45 | 201 Flt | Air Gunner | Officer or Airman | 3 | |
OM757 | 27-Jul-45 | 201 Flt | Flight Engineer | Airman | 1 | May be officer. Will not be provided when 2nd Pilot is qualified engineer |
Sorry, I usually include my references. Its USAF Historical Studies No.194 (in 3 parts)Interesting! Would you please provide the reference for these documents?
thanks! Jim
I don't know if this has been asked before but what would have been the impact of VT shells on the daylight bomber offensive?, it had a startling impact in the Pacific theatre, I can't imagine over Germany would have been less so.One of the surprising facts is that the Germans did NOT use contact fuses and that it was a deliberate decision not to do so. By the time it was adopted the situation was hopeless.
View attachment 713756
View attachment 713759
I don't know if this has been asked before but what would have been the impact of VT shells on the daylight bomber offensive?, it had a startling impact in the Pacific theatre, I can't imagine over Germany would have been less so.
Here's an excellent website illustrating some of the many permutations and combinations of the B-24.The first PRODUCTION LINE models with the nose turret were the -
Ford built B-24H-1 delivered from 30 June 1943 followed by
North American built B-24G-1 (26th production B-24G model to come off the line) followed by
Consolidated San Diego B-24J in Aug 1943 and
Consolidated Fort Worth B-24J in Sept 1943.
BUT nose turrets were fitted to B-24D models at Modification Centers from late 1942, those being:-
For bombers intended for the Pacific / CBI units:-
Hawaiian Air Depot both in Hawaii & Australia (both conversions of new build and combat veteran aircraft starting Nov 1942. 322+); and
Oklahoma City Air Depot (98+ with most to the Pacific but 4 to 11th AF & 6 to 14th AF. First completion June 1943.)
Anti-submarine warfare
Fairfield Air Depot (prototype only completed June 1943)
Middletown Air Depot, Pennsylvania (62 conversions - tail turret moved to nose)
Most of these went to 479th & 48th ASG in 8th AF initially until the ASW task was moved to the USN at which point they were reallocated.
The Lancaster is even more boring than the B-17.
The effectiveness of flak per Gary LarsonAs far as fighters go the main enemy was definitely light flak. The attached paper describes the USAAF 8th problems with flak and their counter measures in great detail.
October 1943, North American acceptances 10 B-24G and 2 G-1 for the month, the first to have a front turret was 42-78070 accepted on the 31st, but did not leave the modification centre until 31 December.
Thanks for these!Attached are a few other USAAF reports I have collected on German flak.
No. Over the course of the war the USAAF delivery logs changed format several times. This is what they have for the first Ford built B-24H. Later page formats drop the engine serial number columns to enable recording of modification centre dates. Looking at the aircraft cards might help match dates to any modification centre stays.Do you have information on how long the first Willow Run B-24Hs spent in modification centers?