Hardest plane to take down in WW2?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I think that what B17Sam is pointing out is that as incredibly tough as the B-17 was, the defences over Germany, probably the toughest in the history of airial combat, were still enough to knock 3500 B-17s down.....And remember guy's, he was THERE!.....We wern't...
 
Hi B17sam,

>This forum seems to agree that the B17 was the toughest bomber to shoot down. Perhaps it would be wise to remember that the 8th Air Force alone lost over 3500 B17s.

Comparing the B-24 to the B-17, it really looks like the numbers show the B-24 to be the more survivable aircraft (by a narrow margin).

I have got "B-17 Flying Fortress" by HP Willmott here with a breakdown of the 8th Air Force bomber units by type, sorties, tonnage on target and losses.

Counting only the combat losses, I can compare the combat survivability of the B-17 and B-24. (I'm leaving out a few bomber groups operating both types as their successes and losses can't be identified by type.)

The total 8th Air Force B-17/B-24 losses were 1.50% per sortie.

The B-17 losses were 1.64% per sortie.

The B-24 losses were 1.21% per sortie.

Surprise: The B-24 was the more survivable bomber!

I initially assumed that the B-17's poorer performance could be attributed to its earlier arrival - many B-17s were lost when they tried to fly into the fangs of the Luftwaffe without fighter escort, after all.

However, even when only taking into account bomb groups that arrived December 1943 (along with the Mustangs) or later, the B-17 still has the higher losses with B-17: 1.42% vs. B-24%: 1.11%. The percentages mean that you're losing 4 B-17s where you'd have lost only 3 B-24s.

(Since both aircraft carried virtually the same load per sortie, this doesn't change the picture either.)

Highly interesting

I just notice that the 492nd BG probably shouldn't be counted towards the totals as they had extremely heavy losses during "Carpetbagger" (agent dropping) night missions.

The 801st / 492nd Bomb Group

As they were a B-24 group, excluding them from the analysis (as they fly a completely different type of mission) would change the balance a bit further in favour of the B-24.


Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

---cut----------------

100th BG (B-17): 8630 sorties, 177 lost in combat
301st BG (B-17): 104 sorties, 1 lost in combat
303rd BG (B-17): 10721 sorties, 165 lost in combat
305th BG (B-17): 9231 sorties, 154 lost in combat
306th BG (B-17): 9614 sorties, 171 lost in combat
351st BG (B-17): 8600 sorties, 124 lost in combat
379th BG (B-17): 10492 sorties, 141 lost in combat
381st BG (B-17): 9035 sorties, 131 lost in combat
384th BG (B-17): 9248 sorties, 159 lost in combat
385th BG (B-17): 8264 sorties, 129 lost in combat
390th BG (B-17): 8725 sorties, 144 lost in combat
398th BG (B-17): 6419 sorties, 58 lost in combat
401st BG (B-17): 7430 sorties, 95 lost in combat
447th BG (B-17): 7605 sorties, 153 lost in combat
452nd BG (B-17): 7279 sorties, 110 lost in combat
457th BG (B-17): 7086 sorties, 83 lost in combat
91st BG (B-17): 9591 sorties, 197 lost in combat
92nd BG (B-17): 8633 sorties, 154 lost in combat
94th BG (B-17): 8884 sorties, 153 lost in combat
95th BG (B-17): 8903 sorties, 157 lost in combat
96th BG (B-17): 8924 sorties, 189 lost in combat
97th BG (B-17): 247 sorties, 4 lost in combat
389th BG (B-24): 7579 sorties, 116 lost in combat
392nd BG (B-24): 7060 sorties, 127 lost in combat
445th BG (B-24): 7145 sorties, 108 lost in combat
446th BG (B-24): 7259 sorties, 58 lost in combat
448th BG (B-24): 9774 sorties, 101 lost in combat
44th BG (B-24): 8009 sorties, 153 lost in combat
453rd BG (B-24): 6655 sorties, 58 lost in combat
458th BG (B-24): 5759 sorties, 47 lost in combat
466th BG (B-24): 5762 sorties, 47 lost in combat
467th BG (B-24): 5538 sorties, 29 lost in combat
489th BG (B-24): 2998 sorties, 29 lost in combat
491st BG (B-24): 5005 sorties, 47 lost in combat
492nd BG (B-24): 1513 sorties, 51 lost in combat
93rd BG (B-24): 8169 sorties, 100 lost in combat
 
lesofprimus said:
Fighter - P-47
Ground Attack - IL-2
Bomber - B-17
Carrier - F4U
Click to expand...

I gotta go with these also - as to B-29 maybe harder to hit but I have never seen so many B-17s brought home with direct hits in Fuselage with 88's, mid air collisions with 109s, all the nose gone, most of vertical stabilizer, etc.

I just haven't seen as many examples of B-29s that were hit as hard and often and still got back (of course that had to fly a lot farther to get back!)
 

Interesting - how does the fact that B-17s were twice as numerous in the 8th and had a different operational profile (flying 4-6,000 feet higher) affect your thinking, if at all... this is not a loaded question, as I have many of my own.

With this analysis it would be hard not to rank the B-26 Marauder above both the B-24 and B-17 and remember that the Marauder flew much lower, in accurate range of a lot more flak?
 
Hi Lesofprimus,

>Great info, but German pilots loved coming in on -24 pulks as opposed to the -17s... They were alot easier to knock down, as numerous pilot testimonies agree....

Roger on Luftwaffe pilot opinion. However, in the end the numbers work out in favour of the B-24, for whatever reason.

Maybe the B-24 blew up quickly while the B-17 died slowly - possibly after the attacking Luftwaffe pilot had left the formation so he would not recognize that his attack had been successful after all.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
B-24 v B-17 figures for 8th are interesting. For all of ETO/MTO the two types had almost exactly the same loss rate 1.6% per sortie, I'd seen, but not those specific numbers. Anyway I agree the superior survivability of the B-17 was believed in by 8th AF leadership, not only German pilot testimonies, but seems hard to demonstrate with loss stats.

On carrier plane, hope not beating a dead horse of old post, the F6F had a markedly lower loss rate to AA fire than the F4U comparing carrier based missions of both in 1945 (before that the great bulk of F4U were landbased, and it's easier for a landbased plane to make it back to a field than a carrier plane to a carrier, and not get pushed overboard). About 41% of carrier based F4U's hit by AA fire became losses v 26% of carrier based F6F's in 1945. (source "Naval Aviation Combat Statistics").

The F4U was also somewhat notorious for relative vulnerability to ground fire in Korea (in that case mainly compared to the AD among props, a much tougher comparison admittedly). This is generally attributed to a larger target area presented by its oil cooler arrangement, and survivability enhancemens were features of the AU-1 ground attack version introduced during the KW.

Joe
 
Maybe the B-24 blew up quickly while the B-17 died slowly
Click to expand...

This was due to the large number of wing tanks the B24 carried. The fuel manifold is right behind the cockpit IIRC. The fuel lines are oval and not round. Ever tried to seal an oval line? The manifold was notorious for leaking and Forrest Clark of "The Flying Eightballs" told me he never rode on a B24 that did not reek of AvGas fumes.

History 44th Bomb Group

One of those engineering quirks like the aileron adjusting blocks on the FW-190 that you just look at wonder what the thinking was behind it.

All the best,

Crumpp
 
JoeB said, "About 41% of carrier based F4U's hit by AA fire became losses v 26% of carrier based F6F's in 1945. (source "Naval Aviation Combat Statistics")."

Joe, do you attribute the disparity to the more vulnerable oil cooling structure?

On a related note, the Pilots Flight Operating Instructions for the F4U-4 (October 1944 T.O. No. AN-01-45HB1) warns that there is only enough oil for a maximum of ten seconds of inverted flight. Also, where there was damage to an oil cooler with resulting loss of oil, neither the oil pressure gauge nor the oil temperature gauge would register the change in pressure or temperature until all of the oil was out of the system. (See Pilots Manual at page 10) Pilots were warned during combat to check the oil coolers and trailing edges of the wings often for damage that could prove catastrophic.
 
I have located the NAVAL AVIATION COMBAT STATISTICS—WORLD WAR II

Indeed the oil cooler configuration and structure was an Achilles heel that was attributed to the higher losses of the Corsair over the Hellcat. Concerning Tables 19 and 20 which tabulates aerial combat data for type of aircraft, type of mission and time period - Page 58:

Thus comparisons are valid between the carrier F6F and F4U totals because they generally operated from the same ships during the same periods.
...
Certain tentative conclusions may be reached from these two tables:

(a) The F6F was slightly superior to the F4U in combat, apparently chiefly because of its greater ability to survive damage.

I have also come across some references on other websites that discuss the vulnerability of the Corsair due to the oil cooler vis a vis the Hellcat and Thunderbolt which had different oil cooler setups.
 
Joe, I think I just came across your post in another forum where you mentioned that the design of the dedicated ground attack F4U-6 (AU-1) attempted to remedy some of this vulnerability.
 
For survivability, twin engine has to beat out single engine. The P-47 was tough but the Beaufighter with two radial engines was very tough too, often coming home with pretty spectacular damage (bit missing or bits, like tree limbs, added on).

Ground attack: Hs-129 - two radial engines vs one liquid cooled in-line in the IL-2.

Tough choice between the B-17 and the B-29. The B-29 didn't have to face masses of fighters with Mk 108 3cm cannons but a number did manage to get home after serious damage sustained in ramming attacks.

Carrier: the TBF / TBM also had a reputation for being able to absorb damage and keep flying
 
Hi Joe,

>Anyway I agree the superior survivability of the B-17 was believed in by 8th AF leadership, not only German pilot testimonies, but seems hard to demonstrate with loss stats.

I'd even say it's not clear whether it this superiority actually existed

>About 41% of carrier based F4U's hit by AA fire became losses v 26% of carrier based F6F's in 1945. (source "Naval Aviation Combat Statistics").

Here are the Naval Aviation Combat Statistics online: http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf

I'm not sure about the difference between the F4U and the F6F as the figures seem to vary considerably depending on which data set one chooses to look at, but have a look at page 88 of the PDF: The SBD seems to be far more survivable than any other single-engined aircraft dive. I found this quite surprising.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Hi Crumpp,

>The manifold was notorious for leaking and Forrest Clark of "The Flying Eightballs" told me he never rode on a B24 that did not reek of AvGas fumes.

Roger, I have heard that it was customary to fly with the the bomb bay doors cracked open just a bit to create a draft in order to suck the fumes out of the aircraft.

However, if the B-24 was more vulnerable to fire than the B-17, the B-17 must have had some other vulnerabilities to reduce its survability to or below that that of the B-24. I have no clue what these might be, though.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Hi Fer-de-lance,

>For survivability, twin engine has to beat out single engine.

The statistics on page 88 of the Naval Air Combat Statistics seem to prove you right. However, they also highlight that larger, slower aircraft take more hits - in the case of the Navy aircraft to a degree that increased their losses to a higher percentage than those of the single-engined aircraft.

However, PB4Y, PV and PBY are hardly in the Beaufighter class, so it's not a fair comparison :-/

(The PBJ data on that page is very good, but according to the report results from level bombing of poorly defended targets, so it's not comparable.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
But note the explanation above, and also the notation in the table Jank mentioned (where the Navy concluded the F6F was less vulnerable). The previous (1943-44) stats don't compare the same operations; F6F were overwhelmingly flying from carriers, F4U's from land, which were simply different missions and opposition besides the different characteristics of landing back on. In 1945 we're comparing just carrier missions of both, and it's a pretty big sample. Add to this the common anecdotal complaints about the F4U's vulnerability in Korea, and I don't see much doubt about it: the F4U was not an outstandingly rugged plane compared to its naval stablemates, if that means resistance to combat damage.

On SBD's or TBF/M's that's a different mission, different flight profile typically, so really apples v oranges. On twin engine *fighters* again back to Korea the Marines concluded the F7F-3N was a basically more suitable plane for the main night interdiction in which it mainly served (in VMF(N)-513 mainly) than the F4U (F4U-5N in that case). It wasn't entirely on account of combat damage resistance per se but the whole advantage of a spare engine over enemy territory, and a second crewmember for a high workload mission. However, the tradeoff with twin engine fighters is they were bigger and easier to hit typically. The F7F was not viewed at being at any advantage in daylight close support, in which role it was used early on in Korea.

Somebody brought up also B-25 etc.: big twins were usually challenged in survivability when they flew fighter-bomber like missions at low altitude, too easy to hit. In their own element of medium altitude bombing against field targets protected by only light flak they were far less vulnerable than fighter-bombers, or divebombers, which flew into the envelopes of those weapons. For example B-26's in ETO had a quite low combat loss rate because they often flew in such situations, though sometimes against heavy flak, and pretty rarely encountered enemy fighters. But again apples and oranges to a fighter-bomber mission profile. Likewise mediums could be effective against high value targets like ships or airfields full of planes at low altitudes (B-25 skip and parafrag bombing) where they could accomplish a lot in one mission, but not flying around low against battlefield targets where you have to come back day after day. An example there is attempts to use B-26's (WWII A-26's) in daylight glide bombing/strafing close support in Korea: judged too easy to hit.

Joe
 
fer-de-lance said:
For survivability, twin engine has to beat out single engine.
Click to expand...

For pilot survivability.. yes. For being knocked out of action, I don't believe it. If a fully loaded twin lost an engine, the mission would be over and in a tactical sense, as good as a kill.

True the IL-2 was water cooled but its durability is well is well known.
 
JoeB said, "But note the explanation above, and also the notation in the table Jank mentioned (where the Navy concluded the F6F was less vulnerable). The previous (1943-44) stats don't compare the same operations; F6F were overwhelmingly flying from carriers, F4U's from land, which were simply different missions and opposition besides the different characteristics of landing back on. In 1945 we're comparing just carrier missions of both, and it's a pretty big sample. Add to this the common anecdotal complaints about the F4U's vulnerability in Korea, and I don't see much doubt about it: the F4U was not an outstandingly rugged plane compared to its naval stablemates, if that means resistance to combat damage."

As you pointed out, the 1945 data is hard to quibble with. Frankly, I am surprised by this revelation. It never occurred to me that the oil coolers were a source of vulnerability not shared by other R-2800 powered fighters.
 
Hi Joe,

>But note the explanation above, and also the notation in the table Jank mentioned (where the Navy concluded the F6F was less vulnerable).

Roger that. Maybe it's sensible to limit the conclusion as done by the report. I was not convinced of that the last time I looked at the data, but you might have a point.

>Add to this the common anecdotal complaints about the F4U's vulnerability in Korea, and I don't see much doubt about it: the F4U was not an outstandingly rugged plane compared to its naval stablemates, if that means resistance to combat damage.

I hadn't been aware that there were actual complaints, but admit I know little about the Korean War. Do you have any details? As a general observation, I'd suggest that durability complaints from the pilots who actually fly a certain type are rare and should be taken serious.

>On SBD's or TBF/M's that's a different mission, different flight profile typically, so really apples v oranges.

Hm, I'm not so sure about that, at least not for the SBDs which I understand would fly similar missions as fighter bombers did. Maybe the land-based FM-2 figure can be considered directly comparable to the land-based SBD figure?

>However, the tradeoff with twin engine fighters is they were bigger and easier to hit typically. The F7F was not viewed at being at any advantage in daylight close support, in which role it was used early on in Korea.

Interesting information, thanks!

>Somebody brought up also B-25 etc.: big twins were usually challenged in survivability when they flew fighter-bomber like missions at low altitude, too easy to hit.

The various schemes to use twins for strafing that both the Germans and the Soviets considered and abandoned seems to confirm your opinion. The Henschel Hs 129 tank buster might have been an exception, but it was designed for small size specifically. (The Junkers Ju 88 was considered for tank busting, but the idea was abandoned, so it looks like size really mattered.)

>An example there is attempts to use B-26's (WWII A-26's) in daylight glide bombing/strafing close support in Korea: judged too easy to hit.

That's more evidence for the effect of size

By the way, a guy working in terminal ballistics once explained to me that survivability is considered the result of two diffferent factors (which we also find in the Naval Aviation Combat Statistics in some places), "susceptibility"- the chance of being hit - and "vulnerabilty" - the chance of going down from a hit. I think for twins, it's pretty clear that increased susceptibility in the fighter bomber mission outweighs the decreased vulnerability, but I have not read much about the impact it makes when you are comparing two single-engined aircraft of different size.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Definitely P-47 for fighters; even when the induction system was shot up, it could still fly normally aspirated.

Il-2 was overrated; Hartmann scored most of his kills on Il-2's. He'd approach the Sturmovik from below behind and take out the oil cooler; worked every time. I would go with the Henschel He 129, also.


B-17 for bomber; tough old bird. Would make it back to it's base in England with whole pieces of airplane missing.

Carrier-based: Probably F4F or F6; they didn't call Grumman the "Iron Works" for nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

P
Cool plane names
Replies
4
Views
683
Greyman
G
German WW2 seaplane bases
Replies
1
Views
591
Dimlee
A
Perun: Building the Worst WW2 Air Force
Replies
13
Views
1K
pinehilljoe
SMGs in ww2 with much smaller cartridges?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
WW2 Fantasy Aircraft
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
2K
SaparotRob
Menu
Log in
Register