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

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

As of mid May 1943 the 8th AF had 4 B-17 and 2 B-24 groups, by late June that had become 13 to 2. The B-24 groups were then non operational or in the Mediterranean until the second week in September, their return made the ratio 16 B-17 to 4 B-24, then came another B-24 detachment in the second half of September. The detached 8th AF B-24 groups all returned to Britain by 4 October 1943, leaving the force at 16 B-17 and 4 B-24 groups, 9 B-17 in the 1st, 4 B-24 in the 2nd and 7 B-17 in the 3rd divisions. The ratio became 17 to 4 on 25 November, 17 to 5 on 13 December, 17 to 6 on 16 December, 17 to 7 on 22 December, 18 to 7 on 24 December, where it stayed until 5 February 1944, when it became 19 to 8, the strength at the start of Big Week on 20 February. The ratio became 20 to 8 the next day and 20 to 9 on 24 February.

The 3rd Bombardment Division had 9 B-17 groups for big week, received its first B-24 group on 4 April and ran its first B-24 mission on 7 May, ending up with 9 B-17 and 5 B-24 on D-Day.

 

[gruad]

For me there is just too much unknown.
I am not saying the aluminum is better, not even close, but even in well know photos we don't know the duration of time, even in some photo sequences.
We don't know the actual flame (or hot gas ) temperature at the impingement area.

We can see the size of the fire blowing over the outside of the wing but that doesn't tell us the size of the fire inside the wing structure or what the airflow (hot gas/flame travel) inside the wing compartment/s was like.

And we haven't even gotten to at what point the wing spar/structure can not handle the aerodynamic load and starts to fold up. How fast, what altitude, what angle of attack is the wing, what side load? all of which may take a few seconds or less than a second?

And if the majority of the crew cannot successfully exit the aircraft in the time available does it matter what the wing spar was made out of?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but thank you very much for the USA support in defeating the time it was called Adolph Hitler

I support every American service man that gave their lives on behalf of us that I could be here now.

 

[gruad]

Sadly somewhat true. Before there enough B-24 BG in 8th AF, the early ones (44th and 93rd fall 1942) had to fly formation with B-17 BG. The best envelope for B-24 is 180 IAS at 18000-22000 feet, behind B-17s at 150 IAS at 25,000 feet. The Davis airfoil on B-24 was low drag but also lower max CL, making it more difficult to both fly and Manuever (stay in tight formation) at 25K.

Result, fly low and behind the B-17s in combat box formations. Right in strike zone of Fw 190/Bf 109 and 88mm flak. 8th AF didn't get enough BG equipped with B-24s until after Big Week to operate as independent Task Force. Kepner's favorite Fighter Wing, the 65th FW, was largely tasked for 2nd BD after D-Day. It was comprised of the 4th, 56th, 355th, 361st and 479th. Like the other two FW's it had P-38, P-47 and P-51 FG's able to perform Penetration, Target and Withdrawal escort via natural (range based) Relay system some what self contained.

My first Chief Desgn in airframe biz was a former 24 driver in 44th BG. He had noticable big forearms to which he attributed 'flying formation at 25K in the early days'

My mother was evacuated from the frogmore sands and moved to salcombe in the west of England


She told me of her own mother's thoughts but she had six daughters that were going to be raped by German soldiers when they came over
God bless every American amen that died or flew was defending us country now God bless them

 

[Corktown]

I work at the Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Base Operations. A few years back a retiree that stopped by the office told me that the production lines at Willow Run, where they built the biggest number of B-24's, was sloped downwards at a 2 or 3% angle to help minimize the effort to move the aircraft along the production line. The slope followed the natural terrain and was a quite clever choice by famous architect Albert Kahn and the Ford engineers ....

 

[pinehilljoe]

Your post reminded me of this picture. This has to be demoralizing to any Axis that saw it postwar.

View attachment 664740

This photo should have been dropped as leaflets

 

[Warspite63]

This photo should have been dropped as leaflets

The word 'Awesome' is frequently misused. In this case, it's perfect. Awesome

 

[Barnie65]

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

I think the B-29 was built too quickly without much thought and also had more accidents than the B-17 and B-24, relative to the number of aircraft in service.

 

[EwenS]

I think the B-29 was built too quickly

With a war on, sometimes time doesnt allow a lengthened development programme to iron the problems out of equipment. It was also a bomber at the cutting edge of technology - pressurisation, remote controlled turrets etc.

without much thought

How do you figure that?

and also had more accidents than the B-17 and B-24, relative to the number of aircraft in service.

And it fulfilled a role that neither the B-17 nor the B-24 could fulfill. Neither of the latter types could bomb Japan from either the CBI or the Marianas.

While the B-29 was able to bomb Singapore in 1944 from bases on Ceylon, it was summer 1945 before B-24s were able to do the same. And that was after lightening the aircraft ( e.g. removing turrets for example) and stuffing as much extra fuel in as possible. They were operating at weights well beyond the norm, having to take off in the cool of the morning for flights that were lasting over 18 hours and sometimes over 24 hours.

Without the B-29 the bombing and mining campaign against Japan wouldn't have been able to begin until July 1945 when the B-24 units began to move onto Okinawa. Iwo Jima couldn't have accomodated enough bombers as well as the fighters to escort them on daylight raids.

Something I read years ago that has stuck in my mind is that the major expansion of the B-17 & B-24 force in 1943 was happening at the same time as the B-29 was starting to form. Winter 1943/44 became a crisis point with a major effort having to be made to get the first 4 BG of the 58th BW ready to deploy to India in April 1944.

 

[special ed]

After re-reading Flyboy's post about B-24 cracking open bay doors on takeoff because of fumes, I was reminded of my Father in Law's telling of a mission takeoff in Austrailia where one of the 24s simply exploded in climbout. I asked what was done and was told the takeoffs continued. I asked what did they think caused the explosion. His comment was when it exploded, the bomb load went also, so there wasn't enough left to flind the cause.

 

[Barnie65]

With a war on, sometimes time doesnt allow a lengthened development programme to iron the problems out of equipment. It was also a bomber at the cutting edge of technology - pressurisation, remote controlled turrets etc.



How do you figure that?

And it fulfilled a role that neither the B-17 nor the B-24 could fulfill. Neither of the latter types could bomb Japan from either the CBI or the Marianas.

While the B-29 was able to bomb Singapore in 1944 from bases on Ceylon, it was summer 1945 before B-24s were able to do the same. And that was after lightening the aircraft ( e.g. removing turrets for example) and stuffing as much extra fuel in as possible. They were operating at weights well beyond the norm, having to take off in the cool of the morning for flights that were lasting over 18 hours and sometimes over 24 hours.

Without the B-29 the bombing and mining campaign against Japan wouldn't have been able to begin until July 1945 when the B-24 units began to move onto Okinawa. Iwo Jima couldn't have accomodated enough bombers as well as the fighters to escort them on daylight raids.

Something I read years ago that has stuck in my mind is that the major expansion of the B-17 & B-24 force in 1943 was happening at the same time as the B-29 was starting to form. Winter 1943/44 became a crisis point with a major effort having to be made to get the first 4 BG of the 58th BW ready to deploy to India in April 1944.

I learned this from a documentary; the engines were too weak for the aircraft and its payload, and as soon as one engine showed signs of weakness, whether due to maintenance or technical problems, the aircraft crashed. There was no reserve to increase engine power.

 

[Frog]

I learned this from a documentary; the engines were too weak for the aircraft and its payload, and as soon as one engine showed signs of weakness, whether due to maintenance or technical problems, the aircraft crashed. There was no reserve to increase engine power.

It was not Boeing's fault if the Wright R-3350 magnesium based crankcase and carburator were sources of troubles...

 

[MiTasol]

After re-reading Flyboy's post about B-24 cracking open bay doors on takeoff because of fumes, I was reminded of my Father in Law's telling of a mission takeoff in Austrailia where one of the 24s simply exploded in climbout. I asked what was done and was told the takeoffs continued. I asked what did they think caused the explosion. His comment was when it exploded, the bomb load went also, so there wasn't enough left to flind the cause.The

Bombs are safe until dropped and armed so would not have exploded. After they were dropped they were safe for a time that depended on the speed they were dropped as they were armed by the small propellers on the front of the bomb.

 

[Shortround6]

Bombs are safe until dropped and armed so would not have exploded.

The only thing that is 100% certain about High Explosives is that there is nothing 100% certain about High Explosives.

IF a fuel/air explosion happened in the bomb bay due to leaking fuel and IF that triggered one of the detonators/fuses and set off that bomb then the other bombs may or may not join in.
Bomb/s on the USS Forstall in 1967 were supposed to be "safe". Cooked off or detonated?

 

[Warspite63]

The only thing that is 100% certain about High Explosives is that there is nothing 100% certain about High Explosives.

IF a fuel/air explosion happened in the bomb bay due to leaking fuel and IF that triggered one of the detonators/fuses and set off that bomb then the other bombs may or may not join in.
Bomb/s on the USS Forstall in 1967 were supposed to be "safe". Cooked off or detonated?

I recently saw a fairly decent documentary on the Forrestal accident - apparently the bombs were expected to withstand the heat of the inferno for 20 minutes. However, the ones involved were from an older batch, built to different specifications. One incredibly brave deck crew member ran towards a bomb sitting in a pool of burning fuel, thinking he had time to douse the fire. He didn't.

 

[Shortround6]

I recently saw a fairly decent documentary on the Forrestal accident - apparently the bombs were expected to withstand the heat of the inferno for 20 minutes. However, the ones involved were from an older batch, built to different specifications. One incredibly brave deck crew member ran towards a bomb sitting in a pool of burning fuel, thinking he had time to douse the fire. He didn't.

From about 1890 to 1945 more battleships were lost due to their own magazines exploding that were sunk by enemy gunfire. Torpedoes and aircraft bombs do outnumber the magazine explosions.
I would have very strong doubts about WW II munition's quality control. It is that last 0.01% that causes all the trouble.

 

[Warspite63]

From about 1890 to 1945 more battleships were lost due to their own magazines exploding that were sunk by enemy gunfire. Torpedoes and aircraft bombs do outnumber the magazine explosions.
I would have very strong doubts about WW II munition's quality control. It is that last 0.01% that causes all the trouble.

OK ... without looking it up ..... I'm gonna go with Vanguard (WWI), Kawachi, Mutsu, Leonardo d Vinci lost. Plus turret explosions: New Mexico (I think) twice, Iowa, Hyuga. Am thinking I'm missing a few pre-dreadnoughts .....

 

[Greg Boeser]

Remember the Maine!
Although I think that was a coal bunker explosion.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Russian Navy seems to be having similar issues lately...

 

[Frog]

The Russian Navy seems to be having similar issues lately...

Cigarettes abuse.

 

[Howard Gibson]

From about 1890 to 1945 more battleships were lost due to their own magazines exploding that were sunk by enemy gunfire. Torpedoes and aircraft bombs do outnumber the magazine explosions.
I would have very strong doubts about WW II munition's quality control. It is that last 0.01% that causes all the trouble.

The magazines exploded due to enemy gunfire, or torpedoes. The British may have been sloppy about handling cordite, but you kind of need the ammo if you are going to fight a battle.