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.
