Erich said:
What were they banned for.
Comparative Study of B-17 vs B-24
- Thread starter WorkinStiff
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
What were they banned for.
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
If I were to take a guess, I would say that rocket-equipped fighters were sitting ducks against Allied escorts. Mid-1944 would have been right about the time the 8th AF finally figured out how to fly proper escort missions.
Erich
the old Sage
Adler, the Br 21cm launcher/rocket was big and cumbersome and not accurate at all. In the case of the Bf 110G-2 it was best for the crews to line up slightly staggered by stafflen and let go with a monstrous barrage. sometimes the rockets hit the mark sometimes they exploded before reaching the heavy bomber formations. the work of these things was to break up the bomber pulks and spread chaos, the bombers loosing the tight formations and then single and twin engine 110's and 410's could close in with their massive firepower of 2cm weapons.
Still experiments were done with JG 3 and JG 300 SturmFw's with a single rearward firing rocket launcher as the Fw's banked upward frm rear to front of the US bombers to fire these weapons which did not score a single hit. Even the Stab of JG 7 had two fitted underneath the nose for Me 262's but again the wieght problem and the inaccuracy caused almost immediate removal, the R4M's were in the works with JGr 10 with successful testing and immediate deliveries to JG 7 in the spring of 45. Again still not that accurate but the lethality of so many rockets per jet fired from the rear and flanks usually would cause the demise of several bombers over the Reich.
E ` and LG you are quite correct with twin engine a/c carrying the heavy Br 21cm if these a/c did not have high cover protection then they were fodder to P-47's and Stangs.
Still experiments were done with JG 3 and JG 300 SturmFw's with a single rearward firing rocket launcher as the Fw's banked upward frm rear to front of the US bombers to fire these weapons which did not score a single hit. Even the Stab of JG 7 had two fitted underneath the nose for Me 262's but again the wieght problem and the inaccuracy caused almost immediate removal, the R4M's were in the works with JGr 10 with successful testing and immediate deliveries to JG 7 in the spring of 45. Again still not that accurate but the lethality of so many rockets per jet fired from the rear and flanks usually would cause the demise of several bombers over the Reich.
E ` and LG you are quite correct with twin engine a/c carrying the heavy Br 21cm if these a/c did not have high cover protection then they were fodder to P-47's and Stangs.
I always thought that the R4M's were quite accurate.
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
I don't think any of the WWII rockets were especially accurate.
And my favorite installation for the 21cm rockets was the 6-barrel, rotary system installed in the Bombay of a Me-410. At least it looked cool.
And my favorite installation for the 21cm rockets was the 6-barrel, rotary system installed in the Bombay of a Me-410. At least it looked cool.
Erich
the old Sage
coll maybe but not functional nor operational, blowing the nose of the creature. Interesting theoery though.....
I agree.
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
I never said it was effective. But the potential firepower was very impressive. And the drag would have been minimal compared with traditional underwing installations.
Does anyone remember the old Aces over Europe flight sim? You coudn't hit crap with the 21cm rockets on that game.
Does anyone remember the old Aces over Europe flight sim? You coudn't hit crap with the 21cm rockets on that game.
Never played it.
(Just trying to get back to the original subject)
Interesting point! But if you lose too many aircraft (especially before they drop their bombs) you're not gonna dent the enemy either!
My two cents: B-17 B-24 - two different design philosophies, neither much more technologically advanced than the other, B-24 generally lighter empty weight resulting in more range but less combat resistance.
Heard many folks say that once a Liberator was on fire, good chance that it was going to explode.
Biggest tradeoff was in the high aspect-ratio wing (in my opinion). It would have been stronger if they hadn't decided to stow the main gear inside of it (between the spars) as opposed to the B-17 inside the inner engine cowlings. So, the B-24 structurally had a "big hole" in each wing.
Much as I respect the Liberator, if I had been alive back then and had a choice, I would have chosen the -17 for combat.
B-24 = more efficient B-17 = safer for crews
the lancaster kicks ass said:SM79Sparviero said:
but what's the point in going if you're not gonna dent the enemy
Interesting point! But if you lose too many aircraft (especially before they drop their bombs) you're not gonna dent the enemy either!
My two cents: B-17 B-24 - two different design philosophies, neither much more technologically advanced than the other, B-24 generally lighter empty weight resulting in more range but less combat resistance.
Heard many folks say that once a Liberator was on fire, good chance that it was going to explode.
Biggest tradeoff was in the high aspect-ratio wing (in my opinion). It would have been stronger if they hadn't decided to stow the main gear inside of it (between the spars) as opposed to the B-17 inside the inner engine cowlings. So, the B-24 structurally had a "big hole" in each wing.
Much as I respect the Liberator, if I had been alive back then and had a choice, I would have chosen the -17 for combat.
B-24 = more efficient B-17 = safer for crews
Erich
the old Sage
looked through several German Luftw. gun cams. both on the rears of B-24 and B-17 pulks. hate to say it guys, neither a/c made it during the attacks. always torn to pieces and no P-51's to save the day at least for these poor bomber crews....
syscom3
Pacific Historian
the "famous" clips of B17's and B24's that Ive seen, that were being ripped up looked like they had been abandoned. Noone was shooting back at the pursuing fighters.
Erich
the old Sage
I do not own famous clips syscom. I have over 50 different selections with many showing the destruction by SturmFw's. the tail gunner was shooting and then boom all over for him as the Fw closed and made mince meat out fo the bomber. All I can say is they are really ugly. I have posted stills elsewhere on this thread, they the bombers, were all manned
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Are u ever going to be able to get some vid clips chopped up for us erich??? I remember once awhile back u stated u were waiting on ur pal to get back into town so he could make some .mpgs for u.....
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Remember the one of the B17 that the fighter got REAL close up and shot it up. It even shows the belly turret turret getting hit, and the wheel getting blasted so hard it falls down from the nacelle. That plane was abandoned and wasnt shooting back. Even the belly turret was pointing downward meaning the gunner most likely got out and jumped.
By "famous", I mean shown quite often on TV or in video clips.
Id love to see all of your ones. Have a thread for "clip of the day".
By "famous", I mean shown quite often on TV or in video clips.
Id love to see all of your ones. Have a thread for "clip of the day".
Erich
the old Sage
I've seen it Les. It is almost strange. Over tha alpen in the winter of 43-44. Attacked by a Bf 110G-2 with upper mg's and lower 2cm's. The tail gunner is working feverously to put out the 110 but cannot and gets some rounds putiing him out of commission, the belley turret receives hits, he gets killed I would imagine, and now the 17 is doomed. the 110G closes in way too close and trys to let fly the upper mgs which basically really do nothing along the engines which are already spinning and into the wings before he banks off to the left. another one is a spring 44 attack head on by a Fw 190A-7, 20mm's cover the upper fuselage after the cockpit is first hit. Several clips that are around and yes I own them show a sight ring right in the middle of the films ` action showing the attacking fw or 109's from the rear pouncing on US bombers. these films were used to train young pilots and shows just what angle and bead to use on the rear of the heavy a/c.
I would love to see what you got Erich. You should post some of it.
My two cents: B-17 B-24 - two different design philosophies, neither much more technologically advanced than the other (quote)
I agree wholeheartedly. For example in the maritime role, the B-24 is my second fav bomber (my fav is the Condor). Granted the Forts were dandy sea-rescue craft, but the navalized versions that the Coastal Command and the USN flew were very effective. B-17s were legendary in how much they sucked against ships.
But I digress, two different philosophies, two different ways of getting the bombs to target.
:{)
I agree wholeheartedly. For example in the maritime role, the B-24 is my second fav bomber (my fav is the Condor). Granted the Forts were dandy sea-rescue craft, but the navalized versions that the Coastal Command and the USN flew were very effective. B-17s were legendary in how much they sucked against ships.
But I digress, two different philosophies, two different ways of getting the bombs to target.
:{)
flakhappy
Airman
Our crew in 1944 happened to fly in both 17s and 24s in Europe. No question, the 17s were more stable, flew higher (safer) and used less fuel. With Davis wing, 24s had to use more power going to target in order to keep in formation. They usually carried 2.5 tons of bombs in order to climb above 23,000 feet, while 17s always carried 3 tons, except when carrying frags or incendiaries, which loaded differently. This is borne out by arming reports after the war. Because of lower lift and low speeds, 24s had problems taking off with 3 tons of bombs. 24s did well in Pacific where they could spread out and fly relatively low. They could use one of their bomb bays for extra fuel.
