'Lil'tyger
Airman
fighter
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Several, if not all, models of the IL-2 had very vulnerable oil coolers, so it would probably be the P-47 for this too...
The B-24, structurally speaking, could probably obsorb more damage than the B-17 (and more weight for weight than the B-29) but it had worse forward defences, and more importantly had leak-prone fuel lines and there were few B-24's that didn't reek of gas fumes...
That was said earlier on the thread, but from what the % losses of each craft were posted it seem to be much less than the B-17, but still noticeable. I think it might have been that the B-24s went down more conspicuously and more were claimed as kills by the LW, just speculation. The same number of wounded B-17s may have lated sucumbed to damage after being attacked while the B-24s might have just burst into flames or exploded with all those gas fumes around. If this is true, the B-17 would still be better since it would give the crew more time to escape alive...
The B-24 was faster than the B-17 though...
I think too the estimate might be influenced by the fact that the Fortress was there from the start and outnumbered the Liberators most of the time.
fighter-47..ground attack:IL-2..bomber:B-24..carrier:F6F..8)
True, but look at the question - "Hardest plane to take down in WW2"Because there are too many variables when u look at it that way Elvis.... Total sortie losses could be from anything, mishap/malfunction/internment....
I agree with everything written here.I think too the estimate might be influenced by the fact that the Fortress was there from the start and outnumbered the Liberators most of the time. From what i've read of the design specs, the Fortress was of a more conventional low wing design that contributed to tremendous structural strength. This quality is mentioned time and again.
The Liberator on the other hand (from multiple sources including Bergerud, Neillands and Miller) state the plane was less durable due to production techniques that saved time + the Davis wing was less durable though it allowed the B-24 sport it's greater range and canaverous bomb bay.
I agree with everything written here.
There are loads more accounts of B-17's being "beaten to death" and still returning their crews home unscathed (well, for the most part).
The 24 was larger and was meant to be a high altitude bomber, period.
Both were designed to be high altitude bombers. The standard mission profile, however, had B-17s operating at 24-28000 and B-24s at 22,000. By all accounts the 24 was hard enough to fly a good tight formation relative to a B-17 at any altitude but nearly impossible at 24,000 plus. Every B-24 driver I ever met had forearms the size of Popeye becuae of the control force workouts.
I think most of its loses occurred when it was pressed into a lower level bombing role, such as what happened at Ploesti.
Offhand, can you recall any other low altitude raid other than the August 43 soiree?
I still say that should've been 26's that went in there, not 24's.
I would agree that the B-26 had a well deserved reputation for toughness
The discussion about 'toughness' is awfully prone to subjective observations due to the fact that so many variables are involved. If you compare loss to sorties for example between a C-47 (which most often did not fly into heavily defended areas) and a B-17 - would you conclude the Gooney was 'tougher'?
just because the loss rate was lower.
Or try to compare the B-26 to B-17 when they didn't really operate in a comparable threat environment.. (26 at medium altitudes, not facing nearly the same LW reaction, not bombing heavily defended targets in Germany, etc)
If you try to compare B-17 to B-24, wouldn't you have to narrow the statistical sample down to equivalent mission profiles day after day for a lot of ops to start drawing some conclusions based on facts? Even if you carved out just 1944/ETO you would have to ask some questions.
Did the B-24s attract more attention that B-17s because they operated typically at 2000-4000 feet lower altitude where a Fw 190 performed better? Or did the B-24 lose more to flak for the same reason - that flak is more effective (intuitively) at 22K than 26K.
Operationally can one prove that over time the one bomb division of B-24s attacked consistently heavier or lighter defended targets than either or both of the two bomb divisions of B-17s in the 8th AF? How did it work for 12th and 15th?
I'm screwing around comparing ops achievements versus losses for the 8th AF FC variants (P-47, P-51 and P-38).
I can easily prove that the P-51 had better air award to air loss ratios than both the other types... but the 56th which flew 47s the entire time is very close to the top..as one 'blip' in statistical conclusions!
I can prove that the P-51 losses to flak were about the same in aggregate to the P-38 for the time they operated together but now it's a little tougher to draw conclusions.. the 38 outfits were nowhere near as 'effective' in attacking German airfields from either numbers attacked or German a/c destroyed - but I think they shot up more trains (not sure yet).
The heavy lifters in that period of co-existance (12/43-9/44) on shooting up airfields were 355th, 4th, 352nd...starting in March, 1944... but how do you draw conclusions that P-47s had lower vulnerabilty in this time frame?
During this time the Jug was only shooting up airfields in France, Holland, Western Germany whereas P-51s were around Munich and Berlin. Taking a hit that might not be fatal for 20 miles but fatal in 400 (slow oil leak, losing manifold pressure down to dangerous level, fuel leak, etc)
BUT all the D-DAY/Normandy campaign stuff in the France area were largely Area Patrols at low level, often with boms - so the 8th AF looked a lot like 9th AF for three months from June through August.. lots of time near random flak batteries versus concentrated airfield flak
So drawing conclusions still very tough
BTW, Consolidated's specialty was building flying boats, such as the PBY (another "tough bird", btw).
This is why the B-24 looks the way it does, with the high mounted wing and the rounded bottom side.
Yes, but that's what they built.PBY, after all, needed high wing to keep engines dry - whereas the 24 had no such requirement...
Yes, but that's what they built.
They had all the tooling setup for building an airplane with a high mounted wing.
Placing the wing in a different spot, may require a change in tooling or (possibly) acquisition of different tooling.
Why go to all that trouble when where the wing is placed (i.e. high or low) would not seem to make that much of a difference.
...but hey, I got that info from The History Channel.
Go yell at them if you have a problem it.
Elvis
My rule of thumb when watching any TV is that if you see it on TV it is either inaccurate or a damned lie. I would be very surprised if the looks of the B24 had much if anything to do with earlier flying boat design by Consolidated. One interesting fact(I use the word advisedly) about the B24 was related to me by a fellow who flew them. He said that an advantage they had over the B17 was that they could lose altitude very quickly(because of the Davis wing) after bombs away to throw off the flak.
The Fw-189 didn't have much crew armour though, did it? Though alot of recon and patrol a/c had somewhat poor crew protection, even many PBY's had mediocre crew protection iirc.
The Fw-189 didn't have much crew armour though, did it? Though alot of recon and patrol a/c had somewhat poor crew protection, even many PBY's had mediocre crew protection iirc. Though most had good defensive armaments...
renrich drgndog,
Re: TV.
Agreed....and might I add, Wikipedia can also fall into that catagory, in the sense that the info is can be constantly altered by whoever views whatever subject they're looking at.
Elvis