Was the B-17 the P-40 of heavy bombers?

[billrunnels]

The B-17 was the most heavily modified US heavy bomber in WWII. It needed to be in order to keep up. The B-24 was easier to build, and despite being able to fly a bit farther or carry a bit more of a bombload, could not hold formation at the altitudes the B-17 could. The B-17 could take more punishment, and was safer if one had to ditch for the crew. The higher flying and more sophisticated B-29, because of the problems bombing at even higher altitudes was eventually stripped of most of its armament and used as a low level night bomber in the Pacific. One wonders how well the 29 might have performed over Germany?

The B-29 would have performed well over Germany. Larger bomb load, greater range plus crew comfort items like pressurization and cabin heat. However, I liked crewing on the B-17. It was a reliable aircraft and would take a lot of punishment.

 

[swampyankee]

The B-17 was the most heavily modified US heavy bomber in WWII. It needed to be in order to keep up. The B-24 was easier to build, and despite being able to fly a bit farther or carry a bit more of a bombload, could not hold formation at the altitudes the B-17 could. The B-17 could take more punishment, and was safer if one had to ditch for the crew. The higher flying and more sophisticated B-29, because of the problems bombing at even higher altitudes was eventually stripped of most of its armament and used as a low level night bomber in the Pacific. One wonders how well the 29 might have performed over Germany?

The B-29 was stripped of much of its equipment because a) it was being escorted, so much of its self-defense weaponry was worse than useless: it cut into bomb load and forced an increase in the number of sorties and b) accuracy wasn't really much of an issue when the dominant weapon is firebombing against cities with large numbers of wooden buildings.

The B-29 was faster -- its cruise speed was greater than a B-17G's maximum speed -- it carried a larger bomb load a longer distance, and could cruise at a higher altitude than the B-17. To provide the same weight of bombs on target, probably one B-29 could replace two B-17s or B-24s.

 

[J.A.W.]

Simple answer.. No..

Because the P-40 flying over the English Channel - to the limit of its combat radius..
could not induce Goering to present his Jagdwaffe on a plate - to be duly razed down by rampant Mustangs..

 

[drgondog]

The B-29 was stripped of much of its equipment because a) it was being escorted, so much of its self-defense weaponry was worse than useless: it cut into bomb load and forced an increase in the number of sorties and b) accuracy wasn't really much of an issue when the dominant weapon is firebombing against cities with large numbers of wooden buildings.

The B-29 was faster -- its cruise speed was greater than a B-17G's maximum speed -- it carried a larger bomb load a longer distance, and could cruise at a higher altitude than the B-17. To provide the same weight of bombs on target, probably one B-29 could replace two B-17s or B-24s.

Getting into this one a little late SY but recall that armament was stripped for max bomb load and low/medium altitude attacks at night - by Lemay. Those particular B-29s temporarily stripped all armament except tail.

Those attacks were March/April 1945 - then returned to high altitude - with all armament, escorted by Mustangs out of Iwo Jima, for the duration.