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

[special ed]

If only the B-24s had P-39s available for long range escort.

 

[Macandy]

And what about the 15th AF???!

Ah yes, I wondered how long before that was brought up.

That would be the 15th Air Force that spent its war either doing fairly low level tactical bombing or attacking some of the most heavily defended targets in the Reich, The oil fields at Ploesti and the aviation factories at Wiener-Nuestad?

And as Eight Air Force losses dropped significantly by Jan 1945 as most of the mission was now over friendly territory, 15th Air Force missions were over hostile soil to the bitter end.

Curiously, their CoS was perfectly happy with the B-24 and didn't ask for more B-17's

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Ah yes, I wondered how long before that was brought up.

That would be the 15th Air Force that spent its war either doing fairly low level tactical bombing or attacking some of the most heavily defended targets in the Reich, The oil fields at Ploesti and the aviation factories at Wiener-Nuestad?

And as Eight Air Force losses dropped significantly by Jan 1945 as most of the mission was now over friendly territory, 15th Air Force missions were over hostile soil to the bitter end.

And go read the post above yours!

It's all spelled out brilliantly!

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

More figures, note some of these contradict earlier reports, showing what is being measured and when is important. Most of the above is contradicted by the documents I have. The B-17 had a higher ceiling, important in Europe, the loss rates vary depending on time and place but overall the B-17...

ww2aircraft.net

Curiously, their CoS was perfectly happy with the B-24 and didn't ask for more B-17's

And they weren't asking for more B-24s either!!!!

 

[Macandy]

As of December 1944 the USAAF plan was to end B-17 production at Boeing in April 1945, and Douglas and Lockheed in January 1946, the B-24 was already down to 2 open production lines, San Diego scheduled to finish in July 1945 and Ford in June 1946, with 2,952 B-17 and 5,588 B-24 outstanding on current orders. End April 1945 the B-17 lines were to remain open until November and December 1946, delivering another 2,054 B-17, the B-24 lines were to shut in July 1945, delivering another 601 B-24. Actual B-24 end of production June 1945, B-17 end of production July 1945.

However, the war developed and the plan by early 1945 became stop building B-17's and pay them all off from front line units, and build loads of B-24N's, B-29's and B-32's

Cancelled USAAF orders for VJ Day

Medium Bombers

B-24N - 5,168

Heavy Bombers

B-29C - 5,000
B-29D - 200
B-32 - 1,885

 

[FLYBOYJ]

However, the war developed and the plan by early 1945 became stop building B-17's and pay them all off from front line units, and build loads of B-24N's, B-29's and B-32's

Cancelled USAAF orders for VJ Day

Medium Bombers

B-24N - 5,168

Heavy Bombers

B-29C - 5,000
B-29D - 200
B-32 - 1,885

More nonsense! READ Sinclair's post!

As of December 1944 the USAAF plan was to end B-17 production at Boeing in April 1945, and Douglas and Lockheed in January 1946, the B-24 was already down to 2 open production lines, San Diego scheduled to finish in July 1945 and Ford in June 1946, with 2,952 B-17 and 5,588 B-24 outstanding on current orders. End April 1945 the B-17 lines were to remain open until November and December 1946, delivering another 2,054 B-17, the B-24 lines were to shut in July 1945, delivering another 601 B-24. Actual B-24 end of production June 1945, B-17 end of production July 1945.

The B-24N, B-29 and B-32 were all separate contracts and were signed and funded way before early 1945!!!!

The B-29D became the B-50 and again was a whole different contract!!!!

Section source: Joe Baugher

The B-29D was an improved version of the original B-29 design, featuring 28-cylinder Pratt & Whitney R-4360-35 Wasp Major engines of 3500 hp (2600 kW) each — nearly 60% more powerful than the usual Duplex-Cyclone. It also had a taller vertical stabilizer and a strengthened wing. The XB-44 was the testbed designation for the D model.

When World War II ended, the B-29D was given the quartet of Wasp Major engines to become the B-50, which served throughout the 1950s in the U.S. bomber fleet.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

Now to where the USSBS is contradicted, the 15th Air Force figures say the B-17 dropped 104,877 tons of bombs January 1944 onwards, the B-24 192,113 tons, B-17 effective sorties from November 1943 onwards are 41,751, B-24 86,838. Even with the missing 1943 bomb tonnage it is clear the B-17 was carrying the heavier loads on average. The average bomb loads using the data in the "Target and Duty Sheets", which give a break down by bomb group, for the December 1943 to October 1944 period, noting the December 1943 figures do not include tonnage classified as jettisoned. For effective B-17 sorties December 1943 to October 1944 the average bomb load dropped was 5,400 pounds, for B-24 it was 4,690 pounds. These figures are a slight underestimate, as some sorties classified as effective have at least some of their bomb tonnage classified as jettisoned.

Great post G Geoffrey Sinclair .

The difference in bomb tonnage drop in favour of the B-17 could be explained due to the Fortress tended to be used for shorter range attacks, so more bombs could be carried?

FLYBOYJ it seems that we have a B-24 expert here, not unlike certain other expert of the pursuit 39er.

Or perhaps only an:

 

[JDCAVE]

"The B-24 bomber one of the most difficult planes to fly during WWII. It was unpressurized, underpowered and prone to explode on takeoff. Unlike the B-17, the B-24 could not maintain altitude if one engine was lost. If two engines were lost, the plane would drop pretty much like a rock." B-24 NAVIGATOR HARRY FORNALCZYK

Defying the Flying Coffin: The Combat and POW Experiences of B-24 Navigator Harry Fornalczyk - Daedalians

by Gary Fullmer, Pioneer Flight Harry was born in Erie, Pennsylvania on September 9, 1923. As a typical young boy of that period, Harry managed to stay out of serious trouble but was very active in several unexplained happenings around his neighborhood. In his high school years, Harry excelled...

www.daedalians.org

I would suggest some research and reviewing some of the other references mentioned in this thread!!!!

This is an important account. The problems of the B-24 with loss of an engine is really notable. On the raid to Dresden, Feb13/14, 1945, all of the engines on dad's aircraft gave trouble and he recalled that after takeoff, he flew all the way to the target and back feathering and restarting all engines. He recorded in his log book "All engines gave trouble".

Escuadrilla: When it comes to WWII, we are all Armchair Aviators!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Escuadrilla: When it comes to WWII, we are all Armchair Aviators!

Some more than others!

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

Some more than others!

FLYBOYJ you just take the words out of my mouth!

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

This is an important account. The problems of the B-24 with loss of an engine is really notable. On the raid to Dresden, Feb13/14, 1945, all of the engines on dad's aircraft gave trouble and he recalled that after takeoff, he flew all the way to the target and back feathering and restarting all engines. He recorded in his log book "All engines gave trouble".

It had to be a pretty interesting ride!

 

[JDCAVE]

It had to be a pretty interesting ride!

It was. A deep penetration and the flight lasted 9 hours and 35 minutes. The Lancaster flew quite well on 3 engines. Crews often got back to England on 2. On the Op to Bottrop, Sep 27, 1944, after having been severely shot up by flak, "Andy" Anderson of 419 Squadron came back to England on 2 engines and landed with only one engine at the crash aerodrome at Woodbridge. He was awarded the DSO for his efforts.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Let's get some facts straight for our friend -

1. The B-24 WAS NEVER intended to replace the B-17. Specification 212 says nothing about this. If anything the B-24 supplemented the B-17
2. The B-24 was generally faster, had a greater range and carried a greater bomb load than the B-17
3. The B-24 was produced more rapidly than the B-17
4. The B-17 was able to absorb much more battle damage than the B-24, it was generally built better
5. The B-24 was basically a rushed design, pushed by Consolidated's President Ruben Fleet
6. Pilot reports PROVE that the B-24 was not as stable in the air but was easier to take off and land when compared to the B-17
7. The B-24 was preferred in the PTO and excelled there because of it's range and different type of targets and missions
8. The B-17 had an over-all better safety record and bombing accuracy record
9. Contracts for later model B-24s were signed and funded way before early 1945 and there is no evidence to show funding was "moved." If someone comes up with different information on this I'll stand to be corrected!

Please feel free to add more so we can separate facts from opinions and fantasies!!!

 

[Macandy]

The 'single tail' B-24N was always intended as the definitive B-24.
It had been test flown in 1943 as the XB-24K, demonstrating superior handling, climb and speed - it cruised 30mph faster than a B-17 while carrying a much bigger bomb load.
It became a very substantial redevelopment of the basic B-24 into almost a new aircraft. Production was ramped up for commencement in mid 1945 at Willow Run, but the end of the war saw the order for 5,160 cancelled.

XB-24K

B-25N

 

[SaparotRob]

Great thread.

 

[JDCAVE]

Can we all agree though: the B-24 was an ugly aircraft! If pigs could fly, they'd look like B-24s.

 

[pbehn]

Can we all agree though: the B-24 was an ugly aircraft! If pigs could fly, they'd look like B-24s.

That took years of hard work.

 

[EwenS]

Can we all agree though: the B-24 was an ugly aircraft! If pigs could fly, they'd look like B-24s.

Well it is often described as the looking like the crate the B-17 came in! But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Adding the front turret did nothing for it aesthetically but was a vast improvement defence wise.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The 'single tail' B-24N was always intended as the definitive B-24.
It had been test flown in 1943 as the XB-24K, demonstrating superior handling, climb and speed - it cruised 30mph faster than a B-17 while carrying a much bigger bomb load.
It became a very substantial redevelopment of the basic B-24 into almost a new aircraft. Production was ramped up for commencement in mid 1945 at Willow Run, but the end of the war saw the order for 5,160 cancelled.

And I think many contributors on this thread are well aware of the B-24N - the prototype carried serial number 44-48753, which indicates the contract was let in 1944.

It wasn't a "substantial redevelopment." Performance improved, larger bomb load and slightly faster - Following a change to a C-54 tail plane and a new rudder, the rear fuselage was attached to another, later production airframe. This B-24D-40-CO (serial 42-40234) was also fitted with more powerful 1,200 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1830-65 engines and the power-operated nose turret of later Liberators, while retaining the Consolidated tail turret. Designated XB-24K, the 'new' aircraft was first flown on September 9, 1943. Tests at Eglin revealed that the new tail configuration improved aircraft handling and field of fire for the tail guns. The XB-24K was 11 mph (18 kmh) faster than previous Liberators, and possessed a greatly improved climb rate.

Consolidated 32 XB-24N Liberator

As previously shown through official records, B-17 production was intended to go into 1946.

And despite the improvements shown on the B-24N, you had the B-32 coming on line and probably "would have" replaced both B-17 AND B-24

"Originally, the Army Air Force intended the B-32 as a "fallback" design to be used only if the B-29 program fell significantly behind in its development schedule. As development of the B-32 became seriously delayed this plan became unnecessary due to the success of the B-29. Initial plans to use the B-32 to supplement the B-29 in re-equipping B-17 and B-24 groups before redeployment of the Eighth and Fifteenth Air Forces to the Pacific were stymied when only five production models had been delivered by the end of 1944, by which time full B-29 operations were underway in the Twentieth Air Force."

U.S. Army Air Force Resource Center - A Warbirds Resource Group Site

This site deals with various technical aspects of the United States Air Force, primarily the aircraft.

www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well it is often described as the looking like the crate the B-17 came in! But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Adding the front turret did nothing for it aesthetically but was a vast improvement defence wise.

And I think some on here may (or may not) know that a number of B-24Ds were actually modified and a turret was installed in place of the glass nose.

credits - USAF, USN, THE INTERNET

 

[33k in the air]

"Originally, the Army Air Force intended the B-32 as a "fallback" design to be used only if the B-29 program fell significantly behind in its development schedule. As development of the B-32 became seriously delayed this plan became unnecessary due to the success of the B-29. Initial plans to use the B-32 to supplement the B-29 in re-equipping B-17 and B-24 groups before redeployment of the Eighth and Fifteenth Air Forces to the Pacific were stymied when only five production models had been delivered by the end of 1944, by which time full B-29 operations were underway in the Twentieth Air Force."

Not only that, but the B-32 effectively became an up-rated B-17/B-24 after it scrapped pressurization and went with manned instead of remotely controlled turrets.