Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
In hindsight possibly, during the war years, I'd say no.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?
I watched it too. My takeaway is that the B-17 was faster than the Lancaster at 32000 feet.There is interesting comparison of speed capabilities of Big Three in the last video on the Greg's Airplanes Youtube channel.
A bit subjective, what was harder? Harder to maintain in the air? More complicated? More muscle needed?The B-24 was much harder to fly, having a much higher accident rate.
There is interesting comparison of speed capabilities of Big Three in the last video on the Greg's Airplanes Youtube channel.
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.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
There is interesting comparison of speed capabilities of Big Three in the last video on the Greg's Airplanes Youtube channel.
A bit subjective, what was harder? Harder to maintain in the air? More complicated? More muscle needed?
It did get a mention.The poor Halifax gets left out, again.
The poor Halifax gets left out, again.
Always a bride's maid, never a bride.
Your post reminded me of this picture. This has to be demoralizing to any Axis that saw it postwar.The B-24 was mass produced easier but it took a while to get there.
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.Your post reminded me of this picture. This has to be demoralizing to any Axis that saw it postwar.
View attachment 664740
I assume that is the Ford line. Any idea what's going on behind the upper turret?Those are early model B-24s. The production lines were just getting started.
Your post reminded me of this picture. This has to be demoralizing to any Axis that saw it postwar.