Rank the Allied Heavy Bombers 1939 to 1944

[pbfoot]

I believe with the the exception of the RCAF photo survey Lancs which flew til 64 the B24 remained in service til 61 with trhe Indian Af 2 years more then the B17 target drones. The B24 was also were used in clandestine ops and ECM missions

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Hey Kris or another mod,

could you change my vote please? I was going to vote for a B-17 and my daughter hit some key and voted for Pe-8. It is her opinion but not mine...
Since I´m 34 years older than she my opinion should be accepted

Thx!

Done. Sorry it took so long. Somehow I missed your post and request. It is changed now though.

 

[Marcel]

There is still a chance of an attack from underneath any which way you put it.

Actually I don't think that all mattered that much. At night, the aircraft from below would hardly be visible. Remember you have (moon) light above you. So I think it was justified to leave away the ball turret in a night bomber like the Lanc or Halifax. The turret would be only dead weight, which was better used to carry bombs.

BTW does anyone know how effective this massive armament on the B17/B24 really was? As the USAAF bombers had tremendous losses before real escort fighters appeared, I would say it didn't matter that much, maybe only slightly raising the survivability?

 

[B-17engineer]

Yes, but I was referring to an earlier post in which Shotround6 said something along the lines of The Lancaster being a daylight bomber it would need the turret, putting it in the same boat as the B-17, lessening bomb load.

 

[syscom3]

There is still a chance of an attack from underneath any which way you put it.

Tunnel guns would work.

 

[syscom3]

I believe with the the exception of the RCAF photo survey Lancs which flew til 64 the B24 remained in service til 61 with trhe Indian Af 2 years more then the B17 target drones. The B24 was also were used in clandestine ops and ECM missions

Consider the economic realities India was in through the mid 60's.

 

[Colin1]

Actually I don't think that all mattered that much. At night, the aircraft from below would hardly be visible. Remember you have (moon) light above you. So I think it was justified to leave away the ball turret in a night bomber like the Lanc or Halifax. The turret would be only dead weight, which was better used to carry bombs.

BTW does anyone know how effective this massive armament on the B17/B24 really was? As the USAAF bombers had tremendous losses before real escort fighters appeared, I would say it didn't matter that much, maybe only slightly raising the survivability?

A ventral turret on a night bomber was all but useless
trying to peer down into the inky blackness below the aircraft would reveal precisely zero until the nightfighter underneath the bomber opened up - which was usually too late. The Luftwaffe took full advantage of this literal blindspot with Schrage Musik.

As a standalone solution it didn't work, the USAAF daylight bombing campaign would have been in deep trouble without fighter escort. It's worth pointing out that towards the end of the war, the RAF were in almost as much trouble as the USAAF due to the advances in AI; Allied nightfighter escorts saved more than a few bombers from destruction. Unescorted carpet bombing courted heavy losses without a fighter escort, it just took a little longer to get really dangerous at night as well.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Curtiss Electric propellers were on on a very limited number of early B-24's
Yes it disapeared fast because other superior equipment like the B-29 was available and not because there was anything particularly wrong with it. The end of WWII spelt the end of the prop powered bombers (for the most part) and the dawn of the jet age.

The Curtiss electric propellers disapperared because they also had a habit of "running away" causing the engine to overspeed. Because they were electically driven they had no fixed stop. All pitch changes are done through the electic motor connected to gears.

What do you mean by questionable internal systems (fuel transfer valves)? Do you mean the manual transfer pump or something else?

The fuel transfer valves and boost pump were nortoius for leaking on the B-24 and the C-87 and the aircraft commonly were found with leaks in the bomb bay. My uncle was a B-24 FE and later a bombadier and i was told on more than one occasion about the fumes in the cabin and how some aircraft were sometimes flown with the bomb bay doors cracked open. Convair made improvments on the Js and Ms.

 

[seesul]

Done. Sorry it took so long. Somehow I missed your post and request. It is changed now though.

No prob Kris and thank you!

 

[seesul]

In some another thread I´ve posted what Willi Reschke told me on my question about his opinion on B-24´s and B-17´s resistivity. He said:'B-24 was not a problem but B-17 was a real hard nut'
And Willi got some 4 engine bombers during his carrier Aces of the Luftwaffe - Willi Reschke

 

[RAF Liberators]

The Curtiss electric propellers disapperared because they also had a habit of "running away" causing the engine to overspeed. Because they were electically driven they had no fixed stop. All pitch changes are done through the electic motor connected to gears.
The fuel transfer valves and boost pump were nortoius for leaking on the B-24 and the C-87 and the aircraft commonly were found with leaks in the bomb bay. My uncle was a B-24 FE and later a bombadier and i was told on more than one occasion about the fumes in the cabin and how some aircraft were sometimes flown with the bomb bay doors cracked open. Convair made improvments on the Js and Ms.

Ooooh my Grandfather was also a FE on Libs, I imagine that he was USAAF?
Yeah I heard about the doors being cracked open but was told it was due to the heat (it got hot out in SEA and MTO).
Hey here's an anecdote for you. The 15th AF out in MTO got fresh ice cream made and delivered to them, the RAF came up with a way of making their own. It involved taking the mix up to high altitude in the bomb bay, letting it freeze and then getting back down to Terra Firma double quick time before it melted

 

[Njaco]

Great story RAF Lib!!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Ooooh my Grandfather was also a FE on Libs, I imagine that he was USAAF?

Yes - He was training to become a bombadair until he was involved in a plane crash.

My wife's grandfather also flew B-24s

 

[Glider]

Ah, thanks Glider (throws book out of the window). But things like the Bieleveld viaduct and U-boat pens is another matter I suppose?

And thats when you need the Lancaster with its 12,000lb and 22,000lb bombs.

 

[syscom3]

Ah, thanks Glider (throws book out of the window). But things like the Bieleveld viaduct and U-boat pens is another matter I suppose?

And certain ships like the Tirpitz.

 

[Colin1]

And certain ships like the Tirpitz.

and the V3 site

 

[davparlr]

I don't think there is a lot to differentiate between these three bombers. If we look at the raw data, it is apparent that they are very similar and that the mix of crew, defensive armament, and mission being the variable.

Empty weight (lbs)
B-17 36,135
B-24 36,500
Lanc 36,828

Normalizing empty weight based on Lanc configuration of 7 crew (one pilot) compared to 10 crew for B-17/24 and two pilots, 8x.303 Browning MGs vs. 10x.50cal Browning MGs, and three turrets vs. four.

MGs 422 lbs
Ammo (two additional guns) 330 lbs *
Crew (three with added support facilities) 700 lbs
Ball Turret 500 lbs (?)
Additional crew station 200lbs (?)
Total delta weight 2151 lbs.

*Assuming .30 and .50 cal ammo weighs the same-a faulty assumption.
(?) indicates WAG

Corrected empty weight (lbs)
B-17 33984
B-24 34349

Max weight (lbs)
B-17 65,500
B-24 65,000
Lanc 68,000

Max load carrying capacity (lbs)
B-17 31516
B-24 30651
Lanc 31172

Max load carrying capacity is awash

Max A/S (mph)
B-17 287
B-24 290
Lanc 280
Max A/S is awash

Ceiling (ft)
B-17 35k
B-24 28k
Lanc 24k

Significant survivability edge for the B-17, but lower target strike accuracy

Cruise Speed (mph)
B-17 182
B-24 215
Lanc 200

Cruise speed adds to survivability by reducing ingress and egress exposure to threat. B-17 is at a disadvantage here.

The B-17 has a reputation of being a strong and survivable airframe.

Total Power (Hp)
B-17 4800
B-24 4800
Lanc 5120

Horsepower favors the Lanc but does not seem to translate to superior performance.

Range is difficult since, for bombers, it is a trade-off between load and fuel. Range is a combination of aerodynamic efficiency and engine efficiency. The B-17 looks more an airplane than the other two that look more like a freight train. However, the B-24 has a more advanced wing. The liquid cooled engines of the Lanc probably reduce frontal area but none of these aircraft can be called clean. Also, I suspect the Merlins are more efficient than the radials.

Due to the liquid cooled engines, maintenance was probably higher on the Lanc.

Other factors include physical bomb carrying adaptability. The Lanc seems to have an advantage here, followed by the B-24.

All in all, as I have said, there is not a lot of difference here. Any of the three aircraft, configured correctly, could perform the other aircraft's tasks with negligible effectivity change, except for a few discrete missions, where the Lanc has an edge.

 

[syscom3]

Nice write up.

The Lancs bomb bay is many times more advantageous than the B17/B24's design. Carrying out sized bombs was the Lancs claim to fame, and in the end, it made the Lanc more efficient. I would also like to say that the AAF recognized early on on this design concept as the B29 was designed to use the same concept.

The cruise speeds of the three types is a bit misleading due to the difference in day and night tactics. The B17 and B24 flew at a slower pace so as to maintain formation integrity. The Lanc was alone in the night, so it could travel relatively faster.

There is also an issue on the avionics. The Lanc flew with a complete setup. The B24 used for night missions would need to get a similar setup, which would offset weight savings by getting rid of unneeded defensive MG's.

 

[RAF Liberators]

The RAF and Commonwealth operated just short of 3,000 Liberators of which a high percentage were used in the night bombing role. It was common for them to operate with only 7-8 crew. Most of the B-24 Pilot's I've interviewed over the years that went on to fly Lancasters in 1945 have said the Liberator generally performed better overall (they also said it was like flying in an armchair by comparrisson ).
You can read stats all day and look at percentages until your eyes bleed but you can't beat it when you hear it from the horses mouth so to speak.
No need to flame me either as I'm just relaying what I've been told by the crews.

 

[syscom3]

The RAF and Commonwealth operated just short of 3,000 Liberators of which a high percentage were used in the night bombing role. It was common for them to operate with only 7-8 crew. Most of the B-24 Pilot's I've interviewed over the years that went on to fly Lancasters in 1945 have said the Liberator generally performed better overall (they also said it was like flying in an armchair by comparrisson ).
You can read stats all day and look at percentages until your eyes bleed but you can't beat it when you hear it from the horses mouth so to speak.
No need to flame me either as I'm just relaying what I've been told by the crews.

The B24 was the better of the three for operations (day/night) in the Pacific. Not having industrial targets to hit meant it was used in more of a role of "long range heavy tactical bomber". In that case, the 1000 and 500 pound bombs were more than adequate.

But even if the B24 had been used in an extensive night role in Europe, there was still that pesky question on the small size of its bomb bay.

As for flying charachteristics between the Lanc and B24? Ask your RAF pilots which plane was easier to fly with one engine out.

As for stats? The USSBS went out to find out what worked and what didnt. There were no lies involved, just the brutal truth about what happened when a bomb hit a target and how much damage was created.