Out of the Big Three WW2 bombers (B-17, B-24, Lancaster), was the Flying Fortress the most redundant? (3 Viewers)

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Bomber Command started PoW evacuation flights on 26 April 1945, Operation Exodus, 8th Air Force on 7 May 1945, Operation Revival.

26 April, 42 Lancaster, 999 PoW
27 April, 62 Lancaster, 3 abort, 22 recall, 503 PoW
28 April, 75 Lancaster, 4 abort, 27 recall, 901 PoW
30 April, 2 Lancaster, 41 PoW
1 May, 10 Lancaster, 236 PoW
2 May, 45 Lancaster, 15 abort, 481 PoW
4 May, 147 Lancaster, includes 2 servicing aircraft, 3,147 PoW, 2 Civilians, 24 of PoW not returned until 6 May, aircraft unserviceable
6 May, 65 Lancaster (plus 1 Film unit Lancaster), includes 2 servicing aircraft, 1,507 PoW
7 May, 36 Lancaster, includes 1 servicing aircraft, 835 PoW
8 May, 212 Lancaster, includes 2 servicing aircraft, 5,047 PoW, 35 of PoW not returned until 9 May.
9 May, 247 Lancaster, 7 abort, 5,651 PoW, 259 of PoW not returned until 10 May, 1 Lancaster crashed, 26 bodies recovered
10 May, 479 Lancaster, 23 abort, 10,489 PoW
11 May, 455 Lancaster, includes 6 servicing and 1 controller aircraft, 9,650 PoW, 1 civilian
12 May, 291 Lancaster, includes 1 servicing aircraft, 34 recalled, 28 abort, 5,449 PoW, 93 refugees, 76 of PoW not returned until 13 May.
13 May, 137 Lancaster (1 was the first flight from Germany), 2,304 PoW, 168 of PoW not returned until 14 May.
14 May, 245 Lancaster, 14 abort, 5,418 PoW
15 May, 211 Lancaster, 19 Abort, 4,552 PoW
16 May, 62 Lancaster, 1,432 PoW, 99 civilian, 1 Red Cross nurse
17 May, 91 Lancaster, includes 1 servicing aircraft, 13 Abort, 1,838 PoW, 241 Belgian refugees
18 May, 26 Lancaster, includes 1 servicing aircraft, 600 PoW, 222 Belgian refugees
19 May, 77 Lancaster, 2 abort, 1,750 PoW, 3 civilians, 253 Belgian refugees
(19 May, 6 Lancaster, 46 containers and 50 boxes of Medical Supplies, 9.6 tons, for Polish Red Cross)
(20 May, 9 Lancaster, 1 abort, Medical Supplies, 9.8 tons, for Polish Red Cross)
21 May, 45 Lancaster, 1 abort, includes 1 servicing aircraft, 1,052 PoW not evacuated until 22nd.
22 May, 3 Lancaster, 72 PoW.
23 May, 137 Lancaster, includes 6 servicing and 1 controller aircraft, 4 abort, Medical Supplies, 9.2 tons, for Polish Red Cross delivered, 2,806 PoW, 225 Belgian refugees
24 May, 117 Lancaster, includes 1 servicing aircraft, 2,158 PoW, 244 Belgian refugees
25 May, 117 Lancaster, includes 1 servicing aircraft, 248 Belgian refugees
26 May, 183 Lancaster, 11 abort, 4,002 PoW, 251 Belgian refugees
27 May, 16 Lancaster, includes 1 servicing aircraft, 313 PoW
28 May, 4 Lancaster, includes 1 servicing aircraft, Medical Supplies, 93.3 tons, for Polish Red Cross, 72 PoW
29 May, 42 Lancaster, includes 1 servicing aircraft, 6 abort, 840 PoW

And on into June

8th Air Force
7 May, 10 sorties, 120 passengers, plus 21 war correspondents
10 May, 87 sorties, includes 4 command aircraft, 2,446 passengers, 1 aircraft aborted landing
11 May, 162 sorties, 1 abort, plus 3 command, control and relay aircraft that did not land 3,535 passengers,
12 May, 134 sorties, 3,743 passengers,
13 May, 300 sorties, includes 1 command aircraft, 1 abort, 8,847 passengers,
14 May, 57 sorties, 1,325 passengers,
15 May, 100 sorties, another 3 observation and command aircraft, 2,962 passengers,
16 May, 201 sorties, 6 abort, 4,702 passengers, plus 21 war correspondents, 1 crash, landing gear, 36 aircraft returned less PoWs
17 May, 35 sorties, 1,050 passengers,
18 May, 70 sorties, another 4 observation and command aircraft, 2,102 passengers,
19 May, 100 sorties, 1 abort, 2,884 passengers, 1 crashed - unknown reason, 5 killed
20 May, 200 sorties, 2 abort, another 4 observation, monitor and command aircraft, 405.9 tons food delivered, 5,764 passengers, 2 taxi accident, 3 aircraft aborted return journey.
25 May, 197 sorties, 2 abort, another 4 observation, patrol and command aircraft, 398.2 tons food delivered, 5,875 passengers, 1 crashed on take off

7,767 US, 2,819 British, 29,270 French, 217 Polish, 1,806 Belgian, 133 Dutch, 4 South African, 2 Australian, 9 Canadian, 2 Norwegian, 2 Danish, 1 Arab, 38 New Zealand PoW, 3,220 French, 30 Belgian, 34 Dutch, 1 Yugoslavian displaced persons.

And on into June

 

[ThomasP]

This is a repost of mine from "The B-17 Flying Fortress Was The Most Overrated Bomber Of World War 2" thread.

Here are 2 official write-ups of the B-17 vs B-24 that I think speak toward the qualities of the respective aircraft.

The first one addresses vulnerability - note that it was kept secret during the war. The other one addresses the myth of the superior performance of the B-24, and is available on the "http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-17/B-17E_B-24D_Comparison.pdf" website.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

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

View attachment 664740

What are the two camo-schemes here? Esp. the one on the left! These are early B-24s right? Really cool shot.

 

[Frog]

What are the two camo-schemes here? Esp. the one on the left! These are early B-24s right? Really cool shot.

On the left : US Navy early PB4Y-1s ; non-Specular Sea Blue, Intermediate Blue, and White.

On the right, USAAF B-24 Ds in classic Olive Drab top and Neutral Grey under surface.

 

[Frog]

Rectification : these PB4Y-1s are painted in Atlantic anti-submarine camouflage : grey upper and white under surface.

 

[Greg Boeser]

What are the two camo-schemes here? Esp. the one on the left! These are early B-24s right? Really cool shot.

USAAF B-24D and USN PB4Y-1

 

[EwenS]

USAAF B-24D and USN PB4Y-1

There are two photos in "Liberator. America's Global Bomber" taken at the Fort Worth factory in 1943. The caption for the first reads:-

"Between February-March 1943, B-24s being converted for the sea search role at Consolidated's Fort Worth Plant were given a straight-edged coat of white paint to the lower surface only."

The second, which relates closely to the one to that posted (taken from a different angle straight down the sea search Liberator line) reads:-

"During April-June 1943, the Fort Worth operation changed to this scheme which employed more white paint with a large line of demarcation."

So these are ALL USAAF B-24s.

On 13th Oct 1942 the USAAF formed its Antisubmarine Command to manage antisubmarine operations in the North and Mid Atlantic from Newfoundland to Trinidad, the Bay of Biscay and the approaches to North Africa. It operated many aircraft types in these operations including the B-24. The scheme in the photo is of the last version used by the Command consisting of Olive Drab upper surfaces with white lower surfaces that extended over the wing leading edge.

At the same time, the USN was also engaged in Atlantic AS operations. There followed a turf war as a result of which responsibility for all Atlantic AS operations passed to the USN and the USAAF Antisubmarine Command was disbanded on 24th Aug 1943. Amongst the USAAF B-24 Antisubmarine units were the 479th AS Group based out of St Eval, Cornwall between July and Nov 1943 when it disbanded, and the 480th AS Group based out of Port Lyautey, French Morocco between June and Nov 1943 before returning stateside and disbanding.

The B-24 AS aircraft used by these units became scattered. About 45 went to the USN with the rest converted back to bomber configuration by the USAAF where some found their way to the Pacific.

The USN began to receive PB4Y-1 in Aug 1942, but they went mainly to the Pacific in WW2. The first Atlantic Fleet squadron didn't form until March 1943 (VPB-103) followed by VPB-105 & 107 in May, VPB-110 in July and VPB-112, 113, 114 in Aug. It was often some months before they received their PB4Y-1s. These squadrons mostly replaced the USAAF units in Cornwall and Morocco for the rest of the war.

USN units in the Pacific used an entirely different paint schemes.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

To add to what Ewen mentioned, if the location is definitely Fort Worth then only 4 B-24 built there went direct to the USN
BuNo 63919 USN 20-Jul-43 ex 42-63796 accepted 17-Apr-43 B-24D-1-CF Transfers, USN Date Jul/Aug 43, Notes: Norfolk, USN first date 22 November
BuNo 63920 USN 20-Jul-43 ex 42-63804 accepted 26-Apr-43 B-24D-5-CF Transfers, USN Date 20-Jul-43, USAAF Date no date, Notes: No USAAF card
BuNo 63935 USN 5-Aug-43 ex 42-63799 accepted 19-Apr-43 B-24D-5-CF Transfers, USN Date 5-Aug-43, USAAF Date 6-Aug-43, Notes: Norfolk
BuNo 63940 USN 8-Jul-43 ex 42-63795 accepted 16-Apr-43 B-24D-1-CF Transfers, USN Date 8-Jul-43, USAAF Date 5-Aug-43, Notes: Acceptance/Transfer report date, at Olmstead 13 August, USN first date 8 August

Only North American built direct to USN, BuNo 38782 USN 29-Mar-44 ex 42-78271 accepted 26-Feb-44 B-24G-10-NT

All other PB4Y-1 and 2 built at San Diego

I may be wrong but the disbanded USAAF anti submarine unit in Britain seeded the Carpetbagger etc. special units.

 

[EwenS]

I may be wrong but the disbanded USAAF anti submarine unit in Britain seeded the Carpetbagger etc. special units.

No you are not wrong. The ground echelon from the 4th AS squadron and the air echelon of the 22nd AS squadron, both part of the 479th AS Group, formed the nucleus of the 36th and 406th Bomb Squadrons which flew their first "Carpetbagger" sorties in Jan 1944. In March they came under the command of the 801st Bomb Group (Provisional) and later the 492nd Bomb Group.

 

[GregP]

Just a quick story.

My former father-in-law was a B-24 pilot in the war, Some 45 years ago or so, I gave him a VHS tape for Christmas on "How to fly your new B-24". It was a training film from WWII and the narrator was John Cmeron Swayze. We both had a beer and were watching it in his living room when they showed a taxi for takeoff. As the airplane turn ed to line up on centerline, the narrator said, "if you lose an engine on takeoff, don't worry! Your B-24 has plenty of power to continue the takeoff and climb.

My father-in-law spit his mouthfull of beer from his seat almost to the TV and laughed long and hard. He said, "I don't know what airplane he is talking about, but ours weren't training fights with an empty airplane! Ours were fully loaded and then likely a bit more. If we lost an engine, a landing followed rapidly whether or not there was a good place for it! … or words to that effect.

We had a few other good laughs about reliability and the B-24 in general. He said he would MUCH rather have flown B-17s, which he got a chance to fly later, and loved it. That's just one side of it. I'm sure there are stories the other way, and few we can't repeat in here about even more off-topic escapades, many of which have little to do with airplanes.

 

[Dana Bell]

What are the two camo-schemes here? Esp. the one on the left! These are early B-24s right? Really cool shot.

I ran down that photo back in the 1970s - those are actually all Army Air Forces aircraft at the Tucson Mod Center. The white ones are wearing one of the Army's anti-sub schemes of OD and white, a scheme applied in spring 1943. By autumn the Army was able to pass the ASW mission to the Navy, which finally developed the two Gull Gray/White schemes.

On the original topic, Doolittle complained to Arnold that his B-24 crews were facing a moral problem. On combined missions their Liberators were always flying at lower altitudes than the Fortress groups and struggling to keep up.

Cheers,



Dana

 

[drgondog]

Just a quick story.

My former father-in-law was a B-24 pilot in the war, Some 45 years ago or so, I gave him a VHS tape for Christmas on "How to fly your new B-24". It was a training film from WWII and the narrator was John Cmeron Swayze. We both had a beer and were watching it in his living room when they showed a taxi for takeoff. As the airplane turn ed to line up on centerline, the narrator said, "if you lose an engine on takeoff, don't worry! Your B-24 has plenty of power to continue the takeoff and climb.

My father-in-law spit his mouthfull of beer from his seat almost to the TV and laughed long and hard. He said, "I don't know what airplane he is talking about, but ours weren't training fights with an empty airplane! Ours were fully loaded and then likely a bit more. If we lost an engine, a landing followed rapidly whether or not there was a good place for it! … or words to that effect.

We had a few other good laughs about reliability and the B-24 in general. He said he would MUCH rather have flown B-17s, which he got a chance to fly later, and loved it. That's jusy one side of it. I'm sure there are stories the other way, and few we can't repeat in heer about even more off-topic escapades, many of which have little to do with airplanes.

I have known and talked to many B-24 drivers. All had two common characteristics; Large forearms from muscling it around trying to fly formation above 20-22,000 feet and, not one said it was better flying machine than the B-17.

From a theatre commander standpoint, the B-24 was faster with a full bomb load, and it flew farther with a full bomb load.

Another curiosity, as an Air force brat I saw B-17s all the time in the Japan and later in the 50s I saw many B-17s in ASR, target drones and command ships - but no B-24s.

 

[Greg Boeser]

I ran down that photo back in the 1970s - those are actually all Army Air Forces aircraft at the Tucson Mod Center. The white ones are wearing one of the Army's anti-sub schemes of OD and white, a scheme applied in spring 1943. By autumn the Army was able to pass the ASW mission to the Navy, which finally developed the two Gull Gray/White schemes.

On the original topic, Doolittle complained to Arnold that his B-24 crews were facing a moral problem. On combined missions their Liberators were always flying at lower altitudes than the Fortress groups and struggling to keep up.

Cheers,



Dana

A common theme among B-17 drivers is that the best fighter defense was flying near a formation of B-24s. The Germans would go for the easier kills.

 

[drgondog]

A common theme among B-17 drivers is that the best fighter defense was flying near a formation of B-24s. The Germans would go for the easier kills.

A common theme, particularly in 1943 when the B-24 BGs were inserted behind a higher flying B-17 box as the 'low group'. Unfortunately for the B-24s, they were in the peak FTH of both the FW 190 and Bf 109s. They were also more vulnerable to flak. Only when the B-24s in 8th AF were collected into the 2BD. Later in the war B-17s were replaced in some instances by B-24s but at that stage flying at 18-22,000 feet was less of a problem by LW fighters.

 

[ThomasP]

My understanding re the B-17s being kept in service post-war and the B-24s not so much is the maintenance issues. Apparently the B-17 cost about 10% less per fight hour, and was superior overall in reliability and durability.

 

[MiTasol]

I have known and talked to many B-24 drivers. All had two common characteristics; Large forearms from muscling it around trying to fly formation above 20-22,000 feet and, not one said it was better flying machine than the B-17.

From a theatre commander standpoint, the B-24 was faster with a full bomb load, and it flew farther with a full bomb load.

Another curiosity, as an Air force brat I saw B-17s all the time in the Japan and later in the 50s I saw many B-17s in ASR, target drones and command ships - but no B-24s.

India used B-24's as low level MR aircraft right in to the late 60's.

 

[SaparotRob]

Go Boeing!

 

[drgondog]

India used B-24's as low level MR aircraft right in to the late 60's.

True, but I was reflecting on USAF continuance with B-17 while walking away from B-24 post WWII.

 

[Frog]

The Privateer service life ended on december 1960 for the French Aéronavale.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

I think perhaps maritime patrol was really the forte of the B-24, though it didn't have great ditching characteristics, it's very long range and endurance, and large bomb load were all helpful in this role.