B17 vs B24 rivalry

B17 can sustain more damage than B24? That's news to me, 'cause I think the B24 looks burlier and tougher with it's huge nose area.

 

Maybe it's time to read some books (or even posts) before you post?
Everyone knows the B-17 could take enormous amounts of damage!

Get some information first(there is lot's of it and even here you can find the "good" stuff)

Here you can find why it's called Flying Fortress:
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/contents.htm

 

Blaster the B-17s reputation for toguhness is well documented, aviation books covering the bombing offensive against Germany usually have multiple pictures or descriptions of the sorts of beatings B-17s could and did take and still return to base.

You think the B-24 was tough because it had a burly nose?

Get a couple of pictures or better still models and compare the wings and tail surfaces of the two. Now even taking into account that what is far more important than looks is the actual structural strength which you cannot usually see, the B-17 to me clearly looks the tougher plane.

A little bit of research will go a long way. If something this widely accepted is indeed news to you, then your knowledge of WWII aviation must be pretty limited.

 

My knowledge is just blurring up a bit because I haven't checked my records for quite a while! That's because I'm focusing on modern figher jets and bombers! And I was only saying that the B24 looks tougher because of it's nose. Looks, not is.

 

Your statement here implies that you knew the B-24 was tougher than the B-17.

 

that big nose on the b24 is made of thin aluminum and plexyglass (plastic) it offers zero protection to the flight crew....except for wind burn mabey....

 

Some ETO figures:

Code:

Type        Sorties    Tonnage    Avg. ton.   # lost   % loss/sortie     % loss/tonn

B-17       291,508    640,036      2.2         4,688        1.61                 0.73

B-24       226,775    452,508      2.0         3,626        1.60                 0.80 

"Give us a B-24 squadron for a fighter cover!" Was something, that I've heard being phrased by B-17 squadrons

 

actually according to those stats it seems the B-17 is more effectife (a very small percentage more lost vs the B024 but with more bombs dropped!)!
B-24 seems to have carried less bombs...would suggest more long range missions!

The only problem with the B-24 is that it couldn't have given the B-17 fighter cover....fighters love to be above their guarded goods

 

Yep, that was a joke from B-17 pilots, who loved the lower flying B-24s drawing all the fighter opposition on the skies over Europe

 

The B24s were used and in other roles except-strategic bombing-with some modifications.The most usual was the removal of defensive armaments to increase range and the its use by Coastal Command in anti-sub roles and sea patrolling missions.

 

Yes, true but the B-17 just did that too (with less range ok)
I wonder wich B-24 didn't have armament (i can only think of the C-87 cargo variant?)

Coastal command had B-17's)



Don't know what this one wants to strategicaly bomb?


So not really a point for the B-24...

 

I was not sure if B-17s were used by Coastal Command along with B-24s. However, if i recall B-24 were more common in such roles than B-17 as the 2nd was more effective in strategic bombing.

 

Fine, the B17 is the tougher plane, but the B24 can carry more bombs. It's 8800lb load trumps the B17 and it's 6000lb load.

 

Really? Considering late war B-17Gs could carry 12,800lbs internally?

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/UR ... tress.html

 

Arrrgh, I must have gotten the wrong data! Curse you that book I got the info from! I should have read that it may have been talking about an early war B17! Or maybe it was only talking about typical loads. Still, curse you that book!

 

I'd pick the B-29.

 

I'd pick the B-29.

 

Or the B50.

 

Which is neither a B-17 nor a B-24 so is not an option here.

 

Yep. In this case I'd pick the B17 because it's tough-in modern day I'd pick the B2 because it's stealth.