Greatest aviation myth this site “de-bunked”. (3 Viewers)

The British accent is also great for delivering jokes.
Please sir, may we have more Black Adder?
 
View attachment 586390
The application of the Balkenkreuz increases the performance of any craft on the air, land or sea.
Bingo
 
No, really MORE BLACK ADDER, please.

You need a cunning plan
 
I was scrolling through the threads of time ( circa 2009) and came upon some posts regarding the B-17 vs B-24 (B17 vs B24 vs Lanc).
Jhor9 and Erich (the old sage) had some posts about LW interceptors preferring to attack B-24's over B-17's. Could that be true or is that a myth too?
 
I was scrolling through the threads of time ( circa 2009) and came upon some posts regarding the B-17 vs B-24 (B17 vs B24 vs Lanc).
Jhor9 and Erich (the old sage) had some posts about LW interceptors preferring to attack B-24's over B-17's. Could that be true or is that a myth too?
Erich is well learned in Luftwaffe techniques through both his research, interviewing countless Luftwaffe pilots and personal connections.
Add to this, the fact that the B-24 had ten .50 MGs as defensive armament where the B-17 was better defended by thirteen .50 MGs and a better field of fire - the B-24's dual horizontal stabilizers were a large "blind spot".
Not a myth at all.
 
B24s tended to fly a bit lower than the Fortress so perhaps that explains the preference.
 
I framed my question incorrectly. Did LW pilots divert(?) from attacking B-17's to B-24's if formations of both were in the same vicinity?
 
I've read anecdotes from German pilots saying that B-24s were more susceptible to gunfire than B-17s.

If I had to take a wild guess -- since the B-24 was harder to fly in formation, their combat boxes might not have been as tight -- leading to Luftwaffe fighters attacking them instead.
 
Last edited:
B24s tended to fly a bit lower than the Fortress so perhaps that explains the preference.

Why was that?
 
Great link! That was not what I was expecting. I'm still a B-17 fan but point we'll taken. It also backs up the views of some of those old posts. Thanks.
The Halifax and Lancaster here a similar quirk in statistics. You were more likely to survive being shot down in a Halifax, you were less likely to be shot down in a Lancaster but for Harris you needed more Halifaxes than Lancasters to drop the same amount of bombs and he didn't know survival rates until after the war.
 
Dare I say the idea that RAF didn't use 100 octane during the BOB.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back