Out of the Big Three WW2 bombers (B-17, B-24, Lancaster), was the Flying Fortress the most redundant?

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

S

spicmart

Staff Sergeant
916
196
May 11, 2008
The Avro Lancaster could be modified to deliver the Dam Buster bouncing bomb as well as the Tall Boy, which was used to sink the battleship Tirpitz, and the Grand Slam to destroy U-boat bunkers. This was possible because of its cavernous bomb bay.

The B-24 Liberator was known for its long range enabling it to engage targets out of reach of the other heavy bombers. It closed the Atlantic Gap which contributed to turn the tide in this war theater in the Allies' favor and it could attack the Romanian oilfields of Ploesti from bases as far as North Africa. For the same reason it replaced the B-17 to cover the vast ranges of the Pacific.

The B-17 had the advantage of being able to drop its bombload from greater heights than the other two and it was a bit more rugged although its loss rate was about the same as the Liberator's. In the end the B-24 could do the same strategic bombing missions as the Fortress.
The Lib could also be produced more easily and faster being optimized for mass production.

So could one say that the B-17 could have been done without?
 
Last edited:
spicmart said:
The Avro Lancaster could be modified to deliver the Dam Buster bouncing bomb as well as the Tall Boy, which was used to sink the battleship Tirpitz, and the Grand Slam to destroy U-boat bunkers. This was possible because of its cavernous bomb bay.
The B-24 Liberator was known for its long range enabling it to engage targets out of reach of the other heavy bombers. It closed the Atlantic Gap which contributed to turn the tide in this war scenario in the Allies' favor and it could attack the Romanian oilfields of Ploesti from bases as far as North Africa. For the same reason it replaced the B-17 to cover the vast ranges of the Pacific.
The B-17 had the advantage of being able to drop its bombload from greater heights than the other two and it was a bit more rugged although its loss rate was about the same as the Liberator's. In the end the B-24 could do the same strategic bombing missions as the Fortress.
It could also produced more easily and faster afaik being optimized for mass production.

So could one say that the B-17 could have been done without?
Click to expand...
In hindsight possibly, during the war years, I'd say no.

I think one has to look at the "bomber supply chain" through-out the war, not only to support the war effort but to support training activity stateside. Having a second source manufacturer made sense if there was a disruption at one manufacturer.

The B-24 was mass produced easier but it took a while to get there.
 
Greg Boeser said:
The B-24 was much harder to fly, having a much higher accident rate.
Click to expand...
A bit subjective, what was harder? Harder to maintain in the air? More complicated? More muscle needed?

The over-all consensus was the B-17 was the better built/ better flying airplane. I met about a dozen people who either flew or maintained both -17s and B-24s (I had an uncle who was a B-24 FE and later became a "toggler). A few pilots I met loved the -24, a few more hated it. From talking to these folks it seemed like the B-24 was an easy flyer until you lost an engine, then the aircraft became a beast to fly, heavy controls, required both pilots and their muscles. I've read many accounts about the B-24 being difficult to fly in formation. My uncle told me the B-24 looked like it was made to be put together rapidly and was maintenance intensive. He said there seemed to be a lot of fuel leaks and it was SOP to crack the bomb bay doors open on take off because of fumes.

A former neighbor was a B-24 co-pilot and was shot down over Italy. He said what he liked about the B-24 was it was a lot faster than the B-17, especially after it dropped it's bombs. The B-24 had a tendency to have a nose shimmy if you landed too fast and put pressure on the nose. You can see many photos of B-24s that had repairs done to the area around the nose wheel well...

The B-24 definitely had a higher accident rate. My uncle was in a crash, the only survivor out of 10 guys
 
FLYBOYJ said:
A bit subjective, what was harder? Harder to maintain in the air? More complicated? More muscle needed?

The over-all consensus was the B-17 was the better built/ better flying airplane. I met about a doze people who either flew or maintained both -17s and B-24s (I had an uncle who was a B-24 FE and later became a "toggler). A few pilots I met loved the -24, a few more hated it. From talking to these folks it seemed like the B-24 was an easy flyer until you lost an engine, then the aircraft became a beast to fly, heavy controls, required both pilots and their muscles. I've read many accounts about the B-24 being difficult to fly in formation. My uncle told me the B-24 looked like it was made to be put together rapidly and was maintenance intensive. He said there seemed to be a lot of fuel leaks and it was SOP to crack the bomb bay doors open on take off because of fumes.

A former neighbor was a B-24 co-pilot and was shot down over Italy. He said what he liked about the B-24 was it was a lot faster than the B-17, especially after it dropped it's bombs. The B-24 had a tendency to have a nose shimmy if you landed too fast and put pressure on the nose. You can see many photos of B-24s that had repairs done to the area around the nose wheel well...

The B-24 definitely had a higher accident rate. My uncle was in a crash, the only survivor out of 10 guys
Click to expand...
There were B-24s which came home with two engines down on one side. E.g. "Liberty Lad" which participated on a Ploesti mission and returned after a 16 hour voyage.
I guess the B-24 being faster contributed to about the same loss rate despite lower ceiling and less robust build.
 
Last edited:
Dimlee said:
There is interesting comparison of speed capabilities of Big Three in the last video on the Greg's Airplanes Youtube channel.
Click to expand...

Except that maximum speed doesn't mean much when it is the combat formation which is the key element of daylight bombing.


FLYBOYJ said:
A bit subjective, what was harder? Harder to maintain in the air? More complicated? More muscle needed?
Click to expand...

The B-24 was harder to fly the tight formations used by the USAAF over Europe as compared to the B-17. According to Capt. Downey Thomas, who flew both over Europe: "The B-24 was a little harder to fly than the B-17. With the B-17 you trimmed it up and it would just about fly itself. But with the B-24 if people moved about you had to keep re-trimming the aircraft. In the B-17 you could fly a really tight formation whereas in the B-24 you had to work hard at it." (Quotation from Target Berlin by Alfred Price and Jeffrey Ethell

On the plus side, its bomb bay could accommodate a larger number of heavier bombs as compared to the B-17. The B-24 could carry 4 x 2,000-lb bombs internally compared to only 2 in the B-17; the B-24 could carry 8 x 1,000-lb GP bombs internally compared to only 6 in the B-17.
 
Last edited:
Greg Boeser said:
Always a bride's maid, never a bride.
Click to expand...

Well, it was a bit of a dog's breakfast...

I can't add much to the B-17 versus the B-24 argument as there are far more knowledgeable people here for that, but between the Lanc, which has had surprisingly little mention here, versus the Halifax, generally speaking, I can chip in.

There is a saying that goes that you were more likely to survive being shot down in a Halifax than in a Lancaster, conversely there was a saying that you were more likely to be shot down in a Halifax than you were in a Lancaster...

And if I had to choose, it'd be the Lanc II over the Halifax III. Makes conversion onto the Lanc III easier :D
 
FLYBOYJ said:
The B-24 was mass produced easier but it took a while to get there.
Click to expand...
Your post reminded me of this picture. This has to be demoralizing to any Axis that saw it postwar.

060530-F-1234S-031.jpg
 
Admiral Beez said:
Your post reminded me of this picture. This has to be demoralizing to any Axis that saw it postwar.

View attachment 664740
Click to expand...
Interesting shot. I first thought how the heck do they move them down the assembly line. Then I noticed the caster of the nosewheel of the bottom right plane, and the conveyer looking tracks on the factory floor. It appears they crab down the assembly line.

Cheers,
Biff
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
A
How did B-17 and B-24 formations avoid shooting each other?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
4K
Peter Gunn
Peter Gunn
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
12K
EwenS
E
Holtzauge
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
846
Ivan1GFP
I
N
The B-17 Flying Fortress Was The Most Overrated Bomber Of World War 2
8 9 10
Replies
196
Views
14K
pbehn
P
Back