Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
Yes I was able to figure that out. Maintaining aircraft kind of gives me an idea of the anatomy of an aircraft.Thanks anyhow though.
I don't believe either one had boosted controls.I recall reading, somewhere, sometime, that the B-24's flight controls were hydraulics-operated, vs the B-17's electrically operated controls, and that the B-24 was more vulnerable because of all the hoses needed for the hydraulics. Whether that was accurate or not, I just don't know, can anyone clear that up?
One only has to look for pictures of battle damaged B-17's and B-24's that made it home to see which was the tougher plane. Yes the MK108's could kill either plane, but the B-17 was more likely to survive such an attack. The B-24 was much more likey to succumb to less than instant killing damage on the way home than the B-17, especially the damage caused by flak.
The B-24 had the range advantage, and a minimal speed advantage, the B-17 could fly higher. So each was suited for different types of missions, though often they were used for the same types of missions. IIRC the big weak point of the B-24 was at the wing root - it could not take much damage between the inboard engine and the fuselage on the wing before the wing would fail catastrophically usually resulting in loss of the entire crew.
In the ETO and MTO - exactly same missions but usually 2-6,000 different altitudes - Pacific the B-24 was the better choice because of range advantage - about 200+miles greater ops radius with same load.
As for the guns, well IMO I think they'd have done better to eliminate all the fixed possition guns and go with the four turrets alone. On the B-17 (G) this would have meant the chin, top, belly, and tail turrets. Arguably the chin turret could have been removed as well - attacking fighters comming from the front were nearly impossible to hit anyway.
But the chin turret was effective - at least as effective as top turret for head on attacks, more if you want to look at plus/minus elevation. It could cover more frontal area than either Top or Ball, and didn't have to stop shooting when the German fighter 'crossed the plane' that took it out of Top or Ball Turret tracking ability. For head on attacks Id' rather have the chin turret than either of the other two.
Eliminating these other positions would have reduced the weight of the plane by over 1000 lbs (including reduction of crew) or perhaps 1500+ lbs if the chin turret were removed. This would have noticably increased the speed of the plane.
Another factor was the B-24 was eaiser to build. The B-17 was designed well before the war and production shortcuts were not really built into the design. The B-24 design was brought online during the war and much more thought was given to how to build them quickly.
Not disputing it but what is your source on this? Production tooling is easy to modify if real improvements are able to be made. A good rule of thumb is unit costs of both. Was the B-24 less expensive? if so your point is probably right as the GFE/Subcontractor assy (Turrets, engines, radios, etc) for both was probably close with maybe the B-24 being slightly higher because it had more power operated turrets plus built in capability to raise and lower Ball Turret - otherwise labor is usually biggest single component in WWII airframes
And yes, the B-24 did drop more tonnage than the B-17. But there were more B-24's so to get a good comparison it'd have to be indexed to number of sorties flown.
I'm one of them.Flakhappy, what bomb group did you fly with?
I know a lot of people here on this forum would love to hear more.
Flakhappy, what bomb group did you fly with?
I know a lot of people here on this forum would love to hear more.
It is amazing to have a WWII hero here in the forum to share his stories and knowledge with us. Flakhappy my hat is off to you sir and thank you for your military service.
Agreed!
One who flew B24s said that one tactic the B24 utilised was that after the bomb release, the B24 could lose some altitude very quickly to confound the AA gunners. He indicated that the B17 was not well suited for this maneuver. Could you comment on that?