Best American Heavy Bomber of WW2

Best US heavy bomber of WW2

  • Consolidated B-24 liberator

    Votes: 21 50.0%

  • Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress

    Votes: 21 50.0%
  • Total voters
    42

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

Right Eric.

I think the title of of this poll should have been "Which Was Better, The B-24 or The B-17"

B-29 was hands down in the other thread(s).

TO
 
Consider that the B-17 was a 4-5 year older design than the B-24, and yet the B-24 provided only marginally better performance. Significant improvements were made to the B-24 platform during the course of the war, while B-17 developement was pretty much stagnant after the "G" model. It would be interesting to see what the B-17 might have become with the same amount of R&D that poured into the B-24. Boeings resources were committed to the B-29 project instead. It would also be interesting to see what may have happened if Ford's Willow Run plant had produced thousands more B-17s instead of B-24s. Obviously, I will pick the B-17 for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that it is a prettier AC.
 

The B-17 had nearly 8 years of development to arrive at the G.

The airframe and fuel and bomb capacity were limited in context of additional development. The basic Clark Y wing and fuselage design pretty well limited the B-17's ability to reduce drag and the only way to increase performance was significantly boost Hp - and in-line engine like the Merlin was only viable option.

- and not worth re-prioritizing Merlin production away from 51's when B-29's were rolling off production lines to provide 'next generation' heavy bomber - with B-36 following.

What did you have in mind relative to continuous modifications to B-24? The primary break was the B-24D to the G/H/J series and that sequence was close to B-17G wasn't it? Other than the USN single tail, what was significant after the B-24J/B-17G's in 1943?
 
Last edited:
Afaik the B-24 can be a best bomber but B-17 was a best plane, i read thet there usaaf report that tell was best the B-17 (best reliability, low incidents rate)
 
I think the B-24 was the better bomber, but if I was an actual pilot I would want to be in the B-17. Ive always heard the B-24 was not fun to fly.

The RAF experimented with the Consolidated B-24 Liberator as a bomber but its most effective role was with RAF Coastal Command as a very long range reconnaissance aircraft, equipped with depth charges.
 
Yeah, the 29 is the logical choice but I have an irrational attraction toward 24s. Something about that slab of a fuselage and garage door bomb bay doors.
 
The Thread poster eliminated the B-29 from consideration - stating that it was clearly the Best WWII bomber but wanted supportied opinions between B-17 and B-24
 
drgondog said:
The Thread poster eliminated the B-29 from consideration - stating that it was clearly the Best WWII bomber but wanted supportied opinions between B-17 and B-24
Click to expand...

Just like the 24 for it's looks but in support I'd say range and load. The 24 beat the 17 in both.

As a crewman, you'd prefer the survivability of the 17 but as a general, the 24 can bring more hurt to the enemy and further.
 
Last edited:
B-17 bombers, of the U.S. Army's Twelfth Air force, dropped fragmentation bombs on the important El Aouina airdrome at Tunis, Tunisia, and covered the airdrome and field completely. On the field below enemy planes can be seen burning, on February 14, 1943.
 
My ex-wife's father flew B-24's in the CBI. For Christmas one year I got him a video on "How to fly the B-24" and we watched it together.

In the video, they said, "Your B-24 has lot s of power so if one engine fails on takeoff, there is no trouble, it flies just fine." Dad said, "I don't know what plane they are talking about, but ours all had a full bomb load and needed all 4 engines to fly. If you lost 1you were going down." He had a few other comments about the B-24, none especially complimentary, but generally liked it since that's what he flew.

Later he said they had a VERY unusual mission and were overloaded with bombs at the time in India. They took off and he pulled it up too soon and got airborne behind the power curve. They went over the fence at 5 feet of altitude and couldn't climb. So he just held the pitch and tried to accelerate and climb. The Taj Mahal was about 15 miles away and he was headed right for it. A turn with any banking would have been disastrous.

He was not able to accelerate and was still at about 10 feet of altitude when he ruddered around the Taj Mahal and slightly dropped the nose. The extra 2 – 3 knots gave him enough to climb and they continued on the mission normally at the regular climb rate. He said he never again pulled an aircraft off the ground below the recommended takeoff speed … and NEVER lived to regret it. He didn't like the Davis airfoil … to say the least.

I had a pilot's license at the time and when he visited us in Phoenix, Arizona, I rented a C-182 and went flying with him and my ex-wife. We had a great time and both she and he loved the flight, especially when I asked him to fly for awhile. I followed him on the controls when I thought it necessary, but let him land it and he did just FINE … so we did a go-around and he did it again without any trouble.

He always figured the better bomber was the B-17 and said the B-24 was the packing crate the B-17 came in ...

He was quite happy to have had an opportunity to fly again and had not lost his touch, so he was emotional about the experience. All in all, a great experience. I miss associating with that family, but not with my ex-wife ...
 
Last edited:
What are we using our bombers for? The B 17 reputedly was more able to withstand battle damage and flew higher, so it was probably the better choice for formation bombing. The B 24 with its Davis wing was apparently inferior as a formation plane, but had better range. It was the better maritime patrol aircraft, if that also qualified as bombing.
 
15th Air Force B-24s over Ploesti, Rumania. (U.S. Air Force photo)



One of the most famous images of World War II shows The Sandman, piloted by Robert Sternfels, as it emerges from a pall of smoke during the TIDALWAVE mission.
 
B-24: better payload/range characteristics. Tricycle gear could be expected to give better ground handling and fewer landing accidents. Somewhere, I remember reading that the B-24 had much easier maintenance access to the engines.

Also, I've got a mild sentimental reason: one of my uncles flew B-24s with the Carpetbaggers (492nd Bombardment Group).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
A
Best Axis four engined bomber?
Replies
9
Views
2K
dedalos
D
Axis Strategic Heavy Bombers?
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
G
Ditching qualities of WW2 Aircraft
Replies
14
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
Menu
Log in
Register