B17 vs B24 rivalry

I was around when those two bombers were operational. and can remember arguing which was better with other pre-schoolers. the topic over milk and cookies at preschool. and when the B-29 came into service the whole arguement was moot. I also remember seeing P-80 shooting star aircraft zoom over our tenement building in Chicago's Uptown neighborhood. hows that for old?

 

paint

by the way all US Military aircraft were painted either O.D. or Blue depending on wether they were Army Air Corps or Navy or Marine planes the naked planes in natural aluminum came after air superiority had been demostrated. planes went faster without their paint. but the first jets were painted grey or even O.D. Bell Airacomet. yes

 

well i think the b-24 is better and obviously so does the AF considering it was the most produced bomber in the war.

 

B-24

what is the definition of a bomber? its a plane that can carry lots of bombs high and far and come home. now the B24 carried more bombs carried them higher and farthur, but the crews said your chances of returning home were better in a B-17. the B-24 could not fly upside down, hmmm thats important. the B-17 was definately prettier and more manueverable. both planes were superior to the heavy bombers the Germans and Japanese did not have. Both countries did try to make heavy bombers but their program was not sucessfull. I know that because no bombs fell on our house in Chicago while I was growing up. nor were there any anti aircraft guns set up near or in Chicago that I know of. no fighter interceptors were stationed at Ohare field or Chicago Municipal Airport. thats what Midway was called then. Our soldiers had to sail across an ocean to fight the Jerrys or the Japs. and the songs were like, I'll be seeing you in all the old familiar places.......Its nice to know that someone in Romania knows about ww2 American Aircraft when school kids here dont even know what or when ww2 was. and if asked to name even one single bomber or fighter would come up with zip, nothing!

 

B-24 and C-130

look carefully at these two planes, high wing short fuselage long high lift wings tricycle landing gear. hmmmmmm. anyway im not saying they are both the same just that there are similarities, when i see C-130 Hercules pass over our house i think hmmm a flight of liberators returning from a mission.har har, at least there are four big props turning on those nascelles, just like there was in ww2

 

I seem to recall that the B-17 carried its load higher than the B-24, that supposedly was one reason B-17 squadrons used to like being sent out with B-24s, the B-24s lower down used to attract the Luftwaffe fighters being easier to intercept and so the B-17s got off lighter.

 

If i recall B-24 had a range of 7,400 km(comparable to that of B-29) and could carry 5,8t of bombs-same as B-17 . Definitely it was produced in greater numbers than B-17(I think B-24 is the most produced strategic bomber in history) but it dropped less bombs in Europe.Also B-17 could fly higher. I think they are of equal value ,more or less, as without P51s escorting them, the bombing campaign would be a disaster.

 

The differences were that the B-24 could carry a greater practical bombload at any given range, once the B-17 started being loaded with bombs its range decreased dramatically. Considering a round trip to Berlin the B-17s practical bombload (That is if you wanted them back at the end of the mission) was less than a Mossie could manage (Care to reintroduce that one Ricky? ).

Plus it's not entirely surprising that the B-17 on the whole dropped a greater amount of ordinance, they served in greater numbers in that theatre for longer.

I agree with your comment about the Mustang though.

 

As long as nobody mentions the P-38!

 

Generally speaking - the B-24 was specifically designed to be a superior bomber in a number of ways than the B-17 and it generally succedded in that. So B-24 it is.

 

Maybe it was designed to be superiour but in a number of ways (one is survivability) it wasn't...in some vital parts the good old 17 was better!
The 17 was roomier and could sustain much more damage with almost the same performance!
Another thing was that the B-17 was very easy to fly(hands of flying...it would go straight on, no sweat) while the 24 was much more difficult to handle (Pilots would have sweaty hands to control this baby)

(B-17E Range 2000 miles with 4000 pounds of bombs vs B-24D 2300 miles with 5000 pounds of bombs....B-17G 1850 miles with 4000 pounds vs B-24J 1700 Miles with 5000 pound bombload)
B-24 just got way tooo heavy to keep it's performance!


A B-24 that wants to be a B-17 prooves it...B-17 all the way

http://www.unrealaircraft.com/hybrid/B17G.php

 

The Davis-wing was an innovation of the B-24 but it wasn't as robust as the wing of the B-17. The B-17s were pulled from Pacific service and replaced with B-24s in both bombing and anti-shipping roles as the war progressed. I figure it had much to do with increased range and flexibility of bomb-loads.
Course if I were bellying an aircraft into water, I think I'd prefer the B-17.

Tim

 

the b17 was considered robust and forgiving by her crews the b24 ,not so much.....a 24 at high altitude was likened to a very fat lady on ice skates.....the b24s great range virtually shut down the mid atlantic for uboats to surface and recharge by daylight ,,,with onboard radar even night time became precariousfor german subs.

 

Every description of the B24 i've read has said it was designed for mass production, very important in wartime.

 

Unless you happened to be in one, in which case other factors came into play.

 

True, same goes for the Sherman of course (is Danyell still around???), and the Colossus class CVL's - 2 years (IIRC) or however long they lasted in combat....and when the Battle class destroyers were introduced Sommerville criticised them as being too expensive and not what destroyers should be............

 

Danyel was banned following one or two "moments" of his, unfortunate considering the knowledge he apparently possessed.

 

I noticed that a while back, so he's been banned again?

Pity, he had a lot of good info, if he could only acquire a sense of humor......

 

Depends on your definition of sense of humour I guess...

http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3315

 

Just as well no-mentioned Star Wars.............

:smok:

Having said that, I've saved the piccie he so thoughtfully provided, so not all is lost.