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

[spicmart]

Did the B-24 have a higher total loss of non--combat crashes than the B-17 and to what percentage?

 

[manta22]

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?

Are you sure you meant to use the word "Redundant"?

 

[Reluctant Poster]

I watched it too. My takeaway is that the B-17 was faster than the Lancaster at 32000 feet.

I watched the video. I think your smile reflects my thought. Missions were never flown at 32,00 feet.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Willow Run played a large part in the war, biased towards the -17 as I am. When your enemy can run them off the line like that, you may as well bend over and smile.

Willow Run was named nicknamed Willit Run for a reason. It took a long time for production to get underway. Note that the first 800 B-24s produced by Willow Run were considered unsuitable for combat and were not send overseas. In 1943 when there was real shortage of heavy bombers Willow Run was not contributing much.

As for Willow Run's much hyped productivity it took a long time for Willow Run to exceed San Diego's productivity. July 1944 in fact.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

A basic comparison of the B-17E vs the B-24D, dated 30 May 1942, can be found here on the WWII Aircraft Performance website:

"http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-17/B-17E_B-24D_Comparison.pdf"

As mentioned above it is from May 1942, so may not be as representative of the later war aircraft or operating conditions, but at least it gives us a base to go from.

Service Ceilings were within 1500 ft at the same weight, in favor of the B-17.
Ranges with the same fuel load at the same TOGW, in favor of the B-17E by about 150- 300 miles.
Cruise Speeds for the ranges given were in favor of the B-24D by about 2-8 mph TAS.

The most significant difference in performance is in the area of TO & Landing runs, where the B-24D runs are clearly shorter by several hundred feet
(although the tests were at very light weights of ~40,000 lbs).

Late-war, with a 3500 lb bomb load, the UK Aircraft Data Sheets show approximately the same range difference of 300 miles in favor of the B-17, and approximately the same speed advantage of 10 mph TAS at most economical cruise in favor of the B-24.

The attached document shows a greater range for the B-17. Note that the B-17 is carrying a greater bomb load.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

How would they do that exactly and were the results viable?

the B-24 was a pig to fly and this showed up in bombing accuracy. The B-24 was a much less accurate bomber. Interestingly the B-24 improved in the 4th quarter, but that is due to the B-24s flying in smaller formations.

 

[NTGray]

Willow Run was named nicknamed Willit Run for a reason. It took a long time for production to get underway. Note that the first 800 B-24s produced by Willow Run were considered unsuitable for combat and were not send overseas. In 1943 when there was real shortage of heavy bombers Willow Run was not contributing much.


As for Willow Run's much hyped productivity it took a long time for Willow Run to exceed San Diego's productivity. July 1944 in fact.

I recently came across a YouTube documentary about the Ford B-24 plant, and one of the issues they talked about was that there was a constant request from the AAF for changes, which gummed up the works. According to the documentary, the Ford management finally said, "Make up your mind what you want, so that we can build it" and then things got better.

 

[spicmart]

Are you sure you meant to use the word "Redundant"?

Sorry if I may not be right. I'm no native English speaker.

The attached document shows a greater range for the B-17. Note that the B-17 is carrying a greater bomb load.
View attachment 665235

How come?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The attached document shows a greater range for the B-17. Note that the B-17 is carrying a greater bomb load.
View attachment 665235

This is great info but I find a few things funny. It looks like these reports were put together in 1945. I believe the 5th AF gave up the last of their B-17s in 1943 so was this data based on what the aircraft was capable of or what was actually flown? Additionally why even put the B-17 in this chart if they are no longer participating?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I recently came across a YouTube documentary about the Ford B-24 plant, and one of the issues they talked about was that there was a constant request from the AAF for changes, which gummed up the works. According to the documentary, the Ford management finally said, "Make up your mind what you want, so that we can build it" and then things got better.

This has been the same story for years and one of the reasons why the F-35 program got so expensive. History repeats itself!

With regards to WW2, I think this was one of the reasons why mod centers were created - build the basic airframe and incorporate changes while the aircraft were on their way to delivery.

 

[EwenS]

For anyone interested in the details of the changes to the B-24:models with nose turrets factory by factory, block no by block no, try getting hold of a book titled "Consolidated Mess". Full of drawings highlighting the changes from the earliest field mods to fit nose turrets to the B-24N that got cancelled. A true labour of love.

The author did promise to do the same for the earlier models but so far nothing
Maybe he has gone mad trying! Or the book has become so large as to unaffordable

 

[pbehn]

I recently came across a YouTube documentary about the Ford B-24 plant, and one of the issues they talked about was that there was a constant request from the AAF for changes, which gummed up the works. According to the documentary, the Ford management finally said, "Make up your mind what you want, so that we can build it" and then things got better.

That may not be as it seems. A car manufacturer makes a car and puts it on a forecourt "take it or leave it". The military are not in the same situation buying huge expensive planes as the public are buying a "Model T". Maybe Ford would have been better advised to ask their client what they wanted now, and what they think they are likely to want in future. It was designed as a bomber, but among the first uses the British had for it was transporting ferry pilots, transporting Churchill and Maritime recon, all as important as dropping bombs. Ford could then have built some more flexibility into their manufacturing plants.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

That may not be as it seems. A car manufacturer makes a car and puts it on a forecourt "take it or leave it". The military are not in the same situation buying huge expensive planes as the public are buying a "Model T". Maybe Ford would have been better advised to ask their client what they wanted now, and what they think they are likely to want in future. It was designed as a bomber, but among the first uses the British had for it was transporting ferry pilots, transporting Churchill and Maritime recon, all as important as dropping bombs. Ford could then have built some more flexibility into their manufacturing plants.

Having worked on defense contracts more than half of my 43 year aviation career, this is not always the case, as it was 75 years ago, at least in the US. All branches of the US military are notorious of continually changing their minds well after the base contract is signed and again I'll use the F-35 was a prime example. Manufacturers DO make suggestions to "the client," this is well documented in the book "Skunk Works," where Kelly Johnson made many "suggestions" to the USAF, sometimes banging his head over their stupidity.

At the same time, if a manufacturer makes too many suggestions, they are viewed as trying to influence the procurement process and then given the evil but fictitious title of "Military Industrial Complex."

 

[pbehn]

Having worked on defense contracts more than half of my 43 year aviation career, this is not always the case, as it was 75 years ago, at least in the US. All branches of the US military are notorious of continually changing their minds well after the base contract is signed and again I'll use the F-35 was a prime example. Manufacturers DO make suggestions to "the client," this is well documented in the book "Skunk Works," where Kelly Johnson made many "suggestions" to the USAF, sometimes banging his head over their stupidity.

At the same time, if a manufacturer makes too many suggestions, they are viewed as trying to influence the procurement process and then given the evil but fictitious title of "Military Industrial Complex."

I was referring specifically to production of the B-24, I also saw a documentary that said production was set up to mass produce a basic type, with little ability to change things either in the organisation or the actual plants, so they made them and converted them later to what the client actually wanted. With the pace of change in the late 1930s and early 1940s people only had ideas of what was needed, when the war started they found out quickly where they were right and where they were way off mark. I mentioned ferry pilots because I dont believe anyone even thought of that as a need at all. But once you fly some planes across the Atlantic HTF do you get the pilots back, the only planes with the range are the ones they are flying in. Airborne RADAR only started in around 1940, just a couple of years after ground based RADAR became a fact not science fiction. I feel your pain, working on such contracts, it is little different in the oil industry, I had 30 years of that.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I was referring specifically to production of the B-24, I also saw a documentary that said production was set up to mass produce a basic type, with little ability to change things either in the organisation or the actual plants, so they made them and converted them later to what the client actually wanted. With the pace of change in the late 1930s and early 1940s people only had ideas of what was needed, when the war started they found out quickly where they were right and where they were way off mark. I mentioned ferry pilots because I dont believe anyone even thought of that as a need at all. But once you fly some planes across the Atlantic HTF do you get the pilots back, the only planes with the range are the ones they are flying in. Airborne RADAR only started in around 1940, just a couple of years after ground based RADAR became a fact not science fiction. I feel your pain, working on such contracts, it is little different in the oil industry, I had 30 years of that.

All true and thus the creation of Mod Centers that can handle these changes/ modifications without disrupting the production line.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Were all components made in house at Willow Run? I know that there were at least 4 or 5 facilities turning out B-24s, with more or less subassemblies being produced elsewhere and then shipped in.

 

[drgondog]

This is great info but I find a few things funny. It looks like these reports were put together in 1945. I believe the 5th AF gave up the last of their B-17s in 1943 so was this data based on what the aircraft was capable of or what was actually flown? Additionally why even put the B-17 in this chart if they are no longer participating?

Joe - the 8th AF HQ moved to Okinawa, due to be equipped with B-17, possibly B-24. Several 8th AF BG went stateside to convert to B-29.

 

[EwenS]

Joe - the 8th AF HQ moved to Okinawa, due to be equipped with B-17, possibly B-24. Several 8th AF BG went stateside to convert to B-29.h

Err no it didn't, at least not physically. In UK 8th AF ceased to exist on a date in July 1945 (Can't remember the exact date). IIRC its responsibilities were taken over by 8th Bomber Command. 8th AF HQ personnel did not move to Okinawa.

On the same day XX Bomber Command HQ (which had been responsible for B-29 ops in the CBI and had been moved to Okinawa when the B-29s it controlled moved to the Marianas under command of XXI Bomber Command) was renamed 8th AF.

The Pacific 8th AF was to control at least 2 Bomb Wings each of 4 Bomb Groups equipped with B-29. IIRC the first 2 BG had arrived on Okinawa as the war was ending with the next two in transit. No operations were flown. From memory it also took command of a fighter wing on Okinawa with P-47N which had been flying ops under 7th AF.

 

[33k in the air]

Were all components made in house at Willow Run? I know that there were at least 4 or 5 facilities turning out B-24s, with more or less subassemblies being produced elsewhere and then shipped in.

I was just going through the publication Official Munitions Production of the United States the other day, looking at aircraft production by factory. Here is what it lists for B-24 production:

1,861 — Consolidated Vultee, Fort Worth, TX (complete assemblies)
.. 882 — Consolidated Vultee, Fort Worth, TX (Ford knockdowns)
6,724 — Consolidated Vultee, San Diego, CA
.. 964 — Douglas, Tulsa, OK (Ford knockdowns)
6,791 — Ford, Willow Run, MI (complete units)
.. 939 — Ford, Willow Run, MI (for Fort Worth)
.. 954 — Ford, Willow Run, MI (for Tulsa)
.. 966 — North American, Dallas, TX

 

[drgondog]

Err no it didn't, at least not physically. In UK 8th AF ceased to exist on a date in July 1945 (Can't remember the exact date). IIRC its responsibilities were taken over by 8th Bomber Command. 8th AF HQ personnel did not move to Okinawa.

On the same day XX Bomber Command HQ (which had been responsible for B-29 ops in the CBI and had been moved to Okinawa when the B-29s it controlled moved to the Marianas under command of XXI Bomber Command) was renamed 8th AF.

The Pacific 8th AF was to control at least 2 Bomb Wings each of 4 Bomb Groups equipped with B-29. IIRC the first 2 BG had arrived on Okinawa as the war was ending with the next two in transit. No operations were flown. From memory it also took command of a fighter wing on Okinawa with P-47N which had been flying ops under 7th AF.

I am relying on Freeman, Mighty Eighth, pg233. "On July 16 Eighth Air Force was re-established on Okinawa in the Pacific as another USAAF bomber organization in the war on Japan". Further, "While the commander and some personnel were drawn from its former forces, they had little to connect it to former self"

It goes on to say that 2 B-29 BGs were ready, but not operational in August when the war ended.

IIRC, the 91st and several other VIII BC (notably 20th BW B-2 groups) had rotated back to states for re-training in B-29 and destined for Okinawa in August/September 1945. The P-51H theoretically also was represented on 8th TO&E along with P-47N and P-51D.