Comparative Study of B-17 vs B-24

[Njaco]

I laughed when I read the posts that have been written here. While both aircraft were important and did their respective jobs, the B-17 got the glory while the B-24 did the work. Not only did the B-24 have a longer range in flight, it could carry a much larger payload of bombs. Sadly, historians have got it wrong. The B-s4 was not only a durable bomber in flight, it had many features that the B-17 did not have. For instance, German pilots would be wary attempting to fly into "the box" of B-24's due to the tailgunners range of movement in the B-24, which was much more capable than that of the B-17. Further, if you want "true valor" the B-24 raid on Ploesti was the only mission in WW2 that garnered 5 Medals of honor in one mission. Even todays movies still "glorify" the B-17 like Memphis Belle and Red Tails when in reality german cities were being pummeled at twice the payload from the B-24. Reality check. You bet.

I won't argue the merits of the B-17 vs B-24 and agree with your take on the 24, but German cities were being plastered predominately by B-17s. The US VIII AF was predominately B-17 and were pounding German cities from about 1943 onward. The B-24 dominated the US XIV AF and were pounding Axis targets in the Med. Only later did they fly missions into Germany.

 

[drgondog]

Flakhappy - I just happened to drop into this thread. The 97th actually was the first 8th AF BG (heavy) to be assigned to England.

Your famous BG actually flew the 8th's first combat mission on August 17, 1942. Flew out of Polebrook then Grafton Underwood before going to Africa. The 97th came to England in May 1942 and flew last combat mission w/8AF on October 21st 1942 then headed for 12th AF in Africa to form the core of heavy BG capability for 12th AF - later the 15th.

One great history as well as post WWII with SAC.

 

[drgondog]

I laughed when I read the posts that have been written here. While both aircraft were important and did their respective jobs, the B-17 got the glory while the B-24 did the work. Not only did the B-24 have a longer range in flight, it could carry a much larger payload of bombs. Sadly, historians have got it wrong. The B-s4 was not only a durable bomber in flight, it had many features that the B-17 did not have. For instance, German pilots would be wary attempting to fly into "the box" of B-24's due to the tailgunners range of movement in the B-24, which was much more capable than that of the B-17. Further, if you want "true valor" the B-24 raid on Ploesti was the only mission in WW2 that garnered 5 Medals of honor in one mission. Even todays movies still "glorify" the B-17 like Memphis Belle and Red Tails when in reality german cities were being pummeled at twice the payload from the B-24. Reality check. You bet.

Interesting remarks. True that Tidal Wave produced five MoH. How does that reflect positively for B-24 effectiveness?

The B-24 probably was a better all around heavy bomber than the B-17 in every theatre except ETO/MTO because of its range and payload, particularly where high altitude operations were demanded because of the threat over enemy airspace - like Germany. Flakhappy gave the reasons he believed the B-17 was preferred by 8th AF and those are documented in many places including Doolittle's biography.

FH brings up another anomaly about relative speeds in ETO. A B-17 doing 150mph IAS at 30K is actually doing about 215mph, at 25K its doing about 205

The B-24 doing 170mph IAS at 20K is doing about 218mph. Not a significant difference. Further, the B-17 operated very well at 25 to 30K versus the B-24 at 20-22K and that happened to be perfectly in the strike zone of the P-51, P-38 and P-47 and to the detriment of the Fw 190 whose BMW801 performance was declining from ~ 20K.

As to preference of LW fighters, I have read a lot of accounts as well as spoken to more than a few LW aces. Nobody expressed a preference to go after B-17s. They took on any bomber but preferred to find unescorted bombers and were indifferent to a range of motion from the tail guns. Historically, the numbers show that B-24 formations were very vulnerable to fighters with heavy weapons.

The bloodiest single day losses to bomber squadrons after May 1944 were B-24s being hit by combinations of Me 410s (june 20, 491st BG), and Fw 190 Sturms (July 7, 491st - Sept 27, 445th BG - Nov 26, 492nd BG) - all stern attacks which by your standard was one the LW 'feared' on the B-24.

On the other hand it would be silly to claim that B-17s were less vulnerable - but the massive single day losses in the last year were dominantly B-24 squadrons (found unescorted) all from stern, with no discernable effect of concentrated bomber defensive firepower..

As to twice the bomb load? Check your numbers again. On the typical ETO/MTO missions of 500-700 mile radius the B-24 typically carried 500 to 1000 pound loads more than the B-17 - 10-16%. Important consideration - yes. Significant to destruction of pin point, precison targets? Probably not.

The B-24s moved away from the very close staggered combat box formations over time to line abreast for reasons of more difficulty in flying in close formation at high altitudes.

Does the above comparison make the B-17 superior? No but certainly Not the defective instrument of daylight precision bombing you wish to portray.

 

[Vincenzo]

sometime ago somebody posted a graphs with statistical data on altitude of bombing over Germany some remember where is?

thanks

 

[Siegfried]

RAF Bomber command treated bombing as a statistical process. They looked at figures such as ratio of bomb tonnage dropped per aircraft lost, in that regard the B-24 may have killed less crew than the 'safer' B-17 because it dropped more per mission. It also tended to bomb a little lower so, assuming a square law, it may have put a higher percentage of its higher tonnage on target. Working against these advantages are what may have been a higher loss rate. Although it flew lower it did fly a little faster. Furthermore it had far greater reach.

 

[Matt308]

I laughed when I read the posts that have been written here. The B-s4 was not only a durable bomber in flight, it had many features that the B-17 did not have. For instance, German pilots would be wary attempting to fly into "the box" of B-24's due to the tailgunners range of movement in the B-24, which was much more capable than that of the B-17. .

Wow. What an arrogant first post. And utterly wrong.

January through May 1944 data (confidential) U.S. report "Attacks and Hits on B-17s and B-24s, Distribution According to Direction of Origin in Azimuth"

B-17
7 o'clock position - 8.9% of attacks resulting in 6.6% attack success rate (successful hits)
6 o'clock position - 20.7% of attacks resulting in 15.6% attack success rate (successful hits)
5 o'clock position - 9.2% of attacks resulting in 9.1% attack success rate (successful hits)

B-24
7 o'clock position - 11.0% of attacks resulting in 6.9% attack success rate (successful hits)
6 o'clock position - 19.6% of attacks resulting in 20.6% attack success rate (successful hits)
5 o'clock position - 7.7% of attacks resulting in 7.8% attack success rate (successful hits)

[Source: Gunner by Donald Nijboer, 2001]

 

[mudpuppy]

JohnC; I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not just poking a stick at the hornets nest and really want to discuss the merits of these two American heavies. Reviving a two year old post and saying you'd "..laughed when I'd read the posts that had been written here" is quite rude and dismissive of the contributors in this post.
It looks like you've just joined the forum and this was your first post.....so if you are actually wishing to take part in the forum's discussions it would be good to dial down the attitude.
Regards,
Derek

 

[jimh]

On the tour we always debate which is best and which did the most work. So we did a cursory count of B-17 and B-24 units in Europe, both 15th and 8th. From our count we came up with 41 B-24 groups and 35 B-17 groups. Each group had four squadrons with an average of 10 planes per squadron. You can come to your own conclusions based on the math. Someday, when I retire, I will do a breakdown of sorties by group. B-24 bestweb was one of our sources.

jim

 

[drgondog]

Jim - a modest note when lumping B-24s and B-17s.

In the 8th AF only two bomb groups flew combat missions from late October/November 1942 (93rd and 44th) to May 1943, when they were sent south to be joined by new 389th BG to practice low level mission against Ploesti. Between May and September all B-24s in 8th AF were in MTO. Net - for first year of 8th AF ops the B-24 comprised 25% 0f 8th AF total heavy BG strength - but only flew combat for 8th for six months of first year of ops.

For period December 1943 through March 1943 the B-24s grew from 5 to 8 BG's of the total 28 BG's.

By the EOW, 12 of 38. All the rest and approximately 70% of the sorties by 8th AF BC were by B-17s. By EOW the count was 26 BG's were B-17s, 13 BG's were B-24s but one of the B-24 (492nd) disbanded due to losses in two months of ops and converted to Carpetbagger.

The 12th/15th started out with B-17s then gradually transitioned to B-24s because most of the high value targets were slightly more suited to the B-24 range/payload combo.[/

 

[drgondog]

I have had a difficult time extracting B-24/B-17 operational loss statistics by month/by type for ETO as a percentage of loss per sortie. Anybody have a link?

The ETO, because of the dominance of B-17 operations over B-24 as well as B-24s of 8th AF 'being out of theatre' from early May through early September 1943, missing Schweinfurt/Regensburg as well as being assigned as 'diversion' on October 14, 1943 certainly has the B-24 groups exposed far less to e/a when the LW achieved air superiority. OTOH, the three 8th AF BG B-24s did NOT escape Ploesti.

 

[jimh]

Great points to all. Also remember Ploesti was bombed continually throughout the war. You would almost need a lifetime to disect all the data at the National Archive. There are literally thousands of records and photos that have not seen the light of day for 70 years.

jim

 

[drgondog]

On the tour we always debate which is best and which did the most work. So we did a cursory count of B-17 and B-24 units in Europe, both 15th and 8th. From our count we came up with 41 B-24 groups and 35 B-17 groups. Each group had four squadrons with an average of 10 planes per squadron. You can come to your own conclusions based on the math. Someday, when I retire, I will do a breakdown of sorties by group. B-24 bestweb was one of our sources.

jim

Jim - the numbers you just put up just sank through my thick skull. If there were 41 B-24 BG's and 35 B-17 Groups in Europe, and 13/26 were in 8th AF - that means that the 15th AF had as many bombers as the 8th?


Army Air Forces in World War II has for Jan 44 (28HBG -ETO, 13HBG -MTO; July44 (41HBG ETO, 21 MTO) Jan 45 (40HBG ETO, 21 MTO), Apr 45 (40HBG ETO, 19HBGMTO)

Net - In July 1944 through April 1945 there were more B-17 Bomb Groups (26) than all the B-17 and B-24 HBG combined in the MTO (21) so something was added incorrectly when your guys did a rough count between B-24 and B-17 numbers in Europe?

 

[jimh]

yes...very very cursory. We obviously get alot of people who ask questions about where thier family members served and alot of times they don't even know which aircraft they served or served aboard. We keep an archive box that has a Map of Europe that includes both the MTO and ETO. On this map is the location of all 15th and 8th AF bomber groups by location and group number. The legend shows which aircraft served with what group. So we counted B-17 vs B-24 groups and groups that used both aircraft. This map is based on 1945 standings. Someday i will break it down by group activation date. Since both the 8th and 15th groups bombed Germany...and just about everywhere else it is only right to include both air forces. Hard to pin down a specific number without a ton of research.

jim

 

[Milosh]

Army Air Forces Statistical Digest

Tables 89 and 90 give the number of a/c on hand in the ETO and MTO.

 

[Milosh]

Since the Tables aren't available

1944
ETO(B-17/B-24) - MTO(B-17/B-24)

Jan 1341/433 - 309/525
Feb 1412/553 - 289/588
Mar 1487/772 - 397/868
Apr 1492/1070 - 368/970
May 1502/1435 - 361/1049
Jun 1471/1458 - 315/982
Jul 1695/1609 - 316/985
Aug 1829/1606 - 366/1079
Sep 1927/1471 - 407/1190
Oct 2143/1330 - 476/1105
Nov 2123/1321 - 476/974
Dec 2168/1183 - 509/951

1945
ETO(B-17/B-24) - MTO(B-17/B-24)

Jan 2125/1077 - 538/987
Feb 2269/1066 - 521/1043
Mar 2367/1045 - 524/1136
Apr 2291/1041 - 497/1096
May 1988/719 - 529/811

Excluding May 1945 there was an average of:

ETO
B-17 - 1852 (61.6%)
B-24 - 1154 (38.4%)

MTO
B-17 - 416 (30%)
B-24 - 970 (70%)

 

[Njaco]

I just watched an episode of "History Detectives" about a B-24 pilot. They made the claim that you were far more likely to survive being a Japanese kamakazie pilot than a B-24 pilot!!! Love to know how they came up with that.

 

[tyrodtom]

I just finished a book called Blossoms in the Wind, interviews with surviving Kamikazi pilots, also Kiaten pilots.( manned torpedoes)

There were quite a bit more pilots recruited and trained for suicide missions than were ever used. I sure someone on here might come up with the numbers.

 

[T Bolt]

I just watched an episode of "History Detectives" about a B-24 pilot. They made the claim that you were far more likely to survive being a Japanese kamakazie pilot than a B-24 pilot!!! Love to know how they came up with that.

My father flew B-24s in the 8th and 15th AF, and when he first joined the 8th in June '44 he said he was told he had a 50/50 chance of surviving his tour. It that was correct and it is also true that there were more Kamikaze pilots not used than used, then that claim could very well be true.

 

[drgondog]

Since the Tables aren't available

1944
ETO(B-17/B-24) - MTO(B-17/B-24)

Jan 1341/433 - 309/525
Feb 1412/553 - 289/588
Mar 1487/772 - 397/868
Apr 1492/1070 - 368/970
May 1502/1435 - 361/1049
Jun 1471/1458 - 315/982
Jul 1695/1609 - 316/985
Aug 1829/1606 - 366/1079
Sep 1927/1471 - 407/1190
Oct 2143/1330 - 476/1105
Nov 2123/1321 - 476/974
Dec 2168/1183 - 509/951

1945
ETO(B-17/B-24) - MTO(B-17/B-24)

Jan 2125/1077 - 538/987
Feb 2269/1066 - 521/1043
Mar 2367/1045 - 524/1136
Apr 2291/1041 - 497/1096
May 1988/719 - 529/811

Excluding May 1944 there was an average of:

ETO
B-17 - 1852 (61.6%)
B-24 - 1154 (38.4%)

MTO
B-17 - 416 (30%)
B-24 - 970 (70%)

Milosh - great find. What about 42/43 when the B-17 dominated 8th AF and flew more than 80% of the sorties during the first 16 month?

IIRC I once saw a statistic that B-17s flew almost 63% of all combined ETO/MTO sorties -

One reason I have looked at statistical loss rates with skepticism - namely the missions flown without long range esacort were dominantly 8th AF/ETO B-17s as the MTO had three fighter groups equipped with 38's one year before the 20th and 55th started in ETO and thus had fighter coverage on most missions.

 

[Milosh]

1943
ETO(B-17/B-24) - MTO(B-17/B-24)

Jan 175/39 - 118/81
Feb 186/69 - 142/65
Mar 502/74 - 167/87
Apr 229/88 - 195/106
May 599/93 - 229/107
Jun 783/51 - 269/192
Jul 820/24 - 314/230
Aug 786/109 - 338/115
Sep 835/96 - 313/204
Oct 907/197 - 298/118
Nov 1166/294 - 268/115
Dec 1302/308 - 289/268