B-17 Vs. B-24 Bombing metric comparison in ETO, Deep Dive Review
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- The 8th and 15th US army air forces deployed both B-17s and B-24 heavy bombers to destroy vital German war critical targets during WWII. This video will address 13 parameters related to the combat effectiveness of each bomber by comparing these metrics. It will become well apparent the the B-17 is superior to the B-24 when used in the European theater. The B-17 had fewer combat losses per sortie, better bomb accuracy, exhibited better formation flying qualities and visibility, higher crew survivability during water ditching and less accidents than the B-24 platforms.
Anecdotal story that supports this argument. My father was a B-17 pilot who flew out of Italy. He was shot down on his first mission, on his way to bomb the refineries at Ploesti. He was interred with many B-24 crews, including most of the crews captured after the famous B-24 raid against Ploesti. After many months their Romanian guards left and the ( now former) POWs were transported by the partisans down to Cairo, Egypt. From there, the 15th AF shut down bomber operations and used all of their B-17 and B-24 aircraft to ferry the ex-POWs back to Italy. My father said that all of the prior B-24 crews insisted on flying back on B-17s because they didn’t trust the B-24. FWIW. And may God bless each and every one of them.
I hate it when data forces me to change my firmly held beliefs 😂
Agree with your assessment. B-24s put a lot more physical stress on their pilots than the B-17 whether in formation or not.
Someone once said flying a B-24 was like driving a semi with no power steering and no power brakes.
@@dfirth224My father was a B-24 pilot in the 8th. He would have agreed with this statement
Someone is afraid they will get a visit from Boeing at 3:30am.
Yeah, because Boeing really needs those B-17 sales to keep the gravy train rolling. Am I right?
Ouch!
Could be another mysterious whistle blower death.
Very informative. As a Seattle native I have a natural affinity for the B-17. That said I had reluctantly bought in to the notion that the B-24 was a better bomber but the B-17 was sexier and therefore got more glory. This detailed analysis dispels that notion.
My old man was in a B-24 outfit in the 8th Air Force. He told me that the B-17s had an additional crew member, a PR officer.
I believe it
Was he part of the ground crew and/or a medic in the 392nd? I found two photos associated with the last name of your dad (from the wedding video). One shows someone with that last name standing with four others and a person on a stretcher, and another shows five people smiling and having fun while someone plays the guitar.
@@fibonacho he was a clerk in the 489th BG.
There was a bit of bad blood between B-17 and B-24 crews. Later in the war, particularly after D-Day, 17’s dropped a waste gunner.
However many B-24’s carried a photographer. We know this because of the number of in-flight B-24 pictures.
didnt really need it. it returning kinda spoke for itself.
The B-24 will never recover from this.
All B24 are scrapped or in museum similar to the B17.
You are the deep-dive master! great video!
Use a B-17 for the water landing of that Deep Dive! You'll have better odds.
My father-in-law flew many different multi-engine types in the SW Pacific theater primarily as a ferry pilot...Catalinas, b-17, b-24, b-25...he said the B-24 was the most difficult and demanding of the bunch to fly....had to monitor it constantly...the Cat apparently all but flew itself.
My father flew on B-17's in the 8thAF and said that they were better for the job than the B-24. I always wondered if that was just because he was on the B-17. Looks like there was something to that. But like all aircraft, it depends on what they were doing as to how you judge them. the B-24 had it's strengths and advantages. I'd say that overall it was a superior aircraft. Had the allies devoted more B-24's to the anti-submarine efforts earlier in the war, they would have run the u-boats out of the Atlantic earlier. The B-24 was a fine aircraft, but the B-17 was more rugged and could take more punishment, which was what was needed over Europe.
George McGovern completed a tour flying the B-24 with the 15th. He had little bad to say about the Liberator and pointed out the faster cruise speed which led to shorter mission duration.
I read a book by a fellow who completed a tour as Flight Engineer on the B-17 late in 1943. After a harrowing stint as an instructor, he went back to flying combat, this time as Engineer in B-24's in Italy. He had no real preference for one plane over the other.
One historian commented that pilots generally had good things to say about whatever plane got them home.
"Unbroken" illustrated the marginal flight characteristics of the B-24 that quickly went to horrible when faced with engine management issues.
its not superior if it doesnt come home and the b-17 does.
excellent video, I recall reading somewhere that the B-24 by most measurements should have been the better bomber, but the B-17 proved it was supieor in actual conditions. Your explanation of the wing area was enlightening. I also read the B-24 wing was weaker than the B-17 due to landing gear placement.
the B-24 wing was weaker due to its high aspect ratio design.
@@SoloRenegade The location of the landing gear weakened the wings considerably, too.
@@fibonacho the location of the landing gear in the wings was a factor on landing, not in surviving Flak or other damage. And on landing is was more often than not the nose gear failing, a problem which persisted into the B-32.
@@SoloRenegade That wasn't the only issue, but it was a contributing factor for some of the differences.
@@SoloRenegade not true as a flak hit on the spars in the upper part of the gear bay seriously compromised the wing in a way a similar hit on a 17 wouldnt.
Interesting video. Thoroughly well researched as always. From the time that I first began learning about WWII and the bombing campaigns, I always felt like for massed bombing of enemy industrial centers, the B17 was better suited than the B24. On the hand for a lot of the other things, island hopping in in the South West Pacific, or being fitted with radar and bombing the u-boats out of existence, the B24 was handy to have in the arsenal. It is interesting to see some of the hard numbers from the Army Air Forces that backup a lot of what I had read about.
I've seen them. I have been making this same argument for years. If anything, he might have understated the case.
The navy agreed with you and modified the B24 to fix some of the issues. They replaced the tail with a single, larger vertical stabilizer. They stretched the fuselage to add room for a navigator to make it easier on the pilot flying over water. They increased the armament.
But their version, the PB4Y-2 Privateer, was one ugly plane. I would never say that to my father when he was alive since he was a bombardier on one and proud of it.
@@tedthurgate It was ugly! But I suppose function was more important than form in this case! Though I have a sneaky suspicion that the original designers gave it a twin tail just to make it look better! LOL....
This adult beverage is one me, best wishes from Florida, Paul
Thanks Paul, I'm opening a cold one right now. Thanks for the channel Super thanks support.
Thank you for the Channel ❤ Your analysis of this subject has taught me a lot. Statistics mostly.
Thank you very much. I like and respect factual presentations.
B-24 did have superior in range and payload, before later B-17 models closed the gap. So early B-24 did have some superior quality.
Maybe it also was a self fulfilling prophecy, B-17 was objective overall the superior plane, and hence get the most development recurses.
This video was made by the B-17 gang
B-17 Mafia , lol
Compiled by primary sources.
Gang gang
Here I am!
He presents facts and you just don’t like it.
Too bad they didn't use mosquitoes instead . Mosquito had a crew of two and could out run most German fighters. Smaller faster much cheaper to make, 12K for mosquito vs 238K for B17.
Stop making sense!
1. Mosquito production was already maxed out.
2. There weren't enough Merlin engines anyway.
3. No it couldn't "outrun" fighters while loaded with bombs. (It was faster than the B-17/24, but could still be intercepted.)
4. No it could not carry the types of bomb loads a B-17/24 did
5. From the numbers I can find, $12k will buy you one of the Merlin engines. No airframe included.
The reason the Mosquito was so hard to "intercept" was because they flew small individual missions on non-standard routes. Had they been flown in a predictable bomber stream they would have been slaughtered.
@@mbryson2899 That isn't making sense. Anyone who thinks the Mosqito could have replaced a heavy bomber has no idea what they are talking about. It's the equivalent of thinking that you could replace infantry, armor, and artillery will and all sniper force. It only makes sense to someone playing video games.
@@Crosshair84 All correct. Plus they usually hit soft targets too.
take a break from war thunder
Well it was known the b17 was a tougher plane and could take more punishment
The B-24's high aspect ratio wing pushed the envelope of the technology. Once both wings experience battle damage it is obvious that the B-17 made it the more survivable aircraft because it's wing was much larger, thicker and more robust. The low placement of the wing made the B-17 more survivable in a crash on water as stated in the video, but also probably on land as well. It's all about the wing. Story over.
Yes. There was data for that. The B-17 handled crash landings and water landings better, and was much less accident prone. In fact, the B-17 had the lowest accident rate of any USAAF combat aircraft. That included All 4 engine bombers, ALL twin engine Bombers, and ALL fighters.
@@sebclot9478 I wouldn't be surprised if the B-17 was more survivable in a crash than the British Avro Lancaster, Handley-Page Halifax or Shorts Stirling too, though due to its construction I suspect that the Vickers Wellington probably could give it a run for it's money. Of course flying during daylight always helps. 🇺🇸🇬🇧
nice to see this in a systematic manner. ive been making the point that b-17s more often faced more resistance by more experienced crews yet still lost fewer aircraft in the face of the enemy. all the extra speed/ carrying cap. and range means nothing if the bomber doesnt make it home.
i was surprised to hear that the 24s view was more restricted than the 17. given the amount of cockpit plexi its rather counter intuitive.
This is why Jimmy Doolittle wanted to convert all three bomber divisions to the B-17.
There's been other people research this that have suggested Doolittle's preference for the B17 might have been due to supply chain issues.
After all he didn't have access to all this information, the majority if not all is post war, all the number's hadn't been tabulated yet when he made his decision.
No. The numbers hadn't been crunched yet, but it was probably a combination of the two.
Pilots and ground crews didn't live in a vacuum. They didn't have much to do in their free time but to talk about airplanes. I'm sure that they were comparing notes about each type, and paying close attention to which aircraft weren't making it back from missions.
It would have been difficult for even the most oblivious of them not to notice that the B-17 had a much longer lifespan than a B-24. 🤷♂️
@@dukecraig2402 Not true. In fact, it was the other way around. Supply chain issues prevented the 8th from switching exclusively to the B-17. Dolittle's preference came after a series of reports from the USAAF stats office the showed that the B-17 was the superior aircraft in almost every way.
I will never forget movies made by Swiss Airforce people showing emergency landings in Duebendorf Zuerich. Those Liberators came down extremely fast. I was screaming: Slower, for Heaven's sake come down slower! Many, many times the front landing gears collapsed.
I had the chance to meet a WW2 Swiss airplane mechanic who was studying the bombers that had made an emergency landings.
He told terrible sories of extremely wounded pilots and crew members. He specially recalled a pilot who had been shot though the foot and the bullet had gone up the entire leg and was stuck in his hip bone! As the copilot was dead he had to land suffering like that. He even had to use both legs to land the plane!
Agree, but with one dissension. The wing loading thing is a stat looking for a purpose that has no application here. It is just one aspect of a design and, by itself, means little to stability. What IS true about a higher wing loading is that, all things being the same, it will have a lower gust/turbulence response, a smoother ride, and to the extent that contributes to bombing accuracy, would improve it.
Great analysis. You found a treasure trove of legit documents. I think the most important metric was that the crews preferred the B-17. As for me, Fortress all day.
Briefly touched on in the video with the "salvo bombing lever", crew ergonomics seems likely to be a major factor. The pilot work load being the main difference between the two planes.
Otherwise it would seem to me the other crew positions are superior on the B-24. I'm not sure how in the video the B-17 has superior firepower. Other than the single limited view dorsal radio operator gun, they were armed the same. Having toured both, of course not flying in combat, the B-24 positions are much better. They are roomier with better views and would seem to be easier to operate. The tailgun turret is obviously more comfortable with a huge view advantage. The same goes for the nose turret. Even the waist gun positions have a better view and wider arc of employment.
I guess those points are moot if the pilot has difficulty keeping the plane steady.
Well put.
It does seem the The B - 24 was more difficult to pilot, which negated all the other advantages it had.
And now, all B24s are sad!
Guess that explains why there's no band called the B-24s ... 🐿
theres a band called b-17s? news to me.
my uncle [mothers side] was a pilot on a B24 in the pacific .... He flew 45 missions .... My father moved to Yugoslavia when he was two .... My grand mother was a interpreter for our air crews who flew over to Romania .... unfortunately she was murdered by the Germans ....
The 24 did it all. That's why so many were built.
I read the book about McGovern piloting B24 out of Italy. Completed something like 35 missions and never once saw an enemy fighter plane. But he flew from September 1944 to April 1945, so the luftwaffe had pretty much been destroyed
Comparison of B17's and B24 losses operating side by side is not a fair comparison.
As per another researcher who did this same study and his conclusion was backed up by German fighter pilots, when flying on the same mission B17's had an approximately 2,000 ft advantage over the B24, but the B24 was slightly faster, for these two reasons B24 formations were put at the rear, so the slower B17's could set the pace, and were 2,000 ft lower than the B17's.
This put them in the "tail end charlie" position which the German fighter pilots always preferred attacking as opposed to the other formations that had more interlocking fire.
The study that the researcher did was quite exhaustive and took him over a year and a half (albeit not full time), once he removed all math that could be skewed due to things like mixed formations, and the information presented here that shows how close loss number's were in the 8th Air Force where they weren't flying mixed formations seems to suggest the same, and each one was accessed simply on their own stand alone figures their loss number's were almost identical.
No. Even the air force reports from the war concluded that the B-17 was more survivable than the B-24. And they agreed with the videos conclusion that B-17 were flying the more dangerous missions. Everything this video says is basically correct.
Can you get a reference pls?
@@jaroslavstava3704 Yes. The USAAF statistical office. They did a report in 1944 that not only concluded that the B-17 was significantly more likely to return from a mission of same difficulty, but 50% more likely to return from a mission where it suffered battle damage.
A shame, I find B-24s more aesthetically pleasing. I wonder how much these numbers would improve if you remove the disastrous Ploesti raids from the data(I understand B-17s had their own share of bad situations, just curious). I also wonder if the PB4Y modification improved the aircraft significantly or not(I assume not to a major degree).
It would be interesting to compare the B17 and the Lancaster.
B-17 vs Lancaster Payloads and Armor (unlisted)
Gregs Air and Auto
ruclips.net/video/tIQj2qfpXSg/видео.html&lc=UgyqEM1O_qNRScyeM7t4AaABAg
B-17 still comes out on top.
compare the lancasters losses for daylight raids to the b-17s.
@@thurin84 The B-17's did much better. Though there really isn't an apples to apples comparison between the two, since the British abandoned escorted daylight raids pretty quickly.
@@sebclot9478 exactly my point. the b-17 was in a different league.
Fascinating analysis. Hindsight is perfect, but you could make a case that they could have switched some B-24 factories over to B-17 and gotten a bigger bang for the buck. Acknowledging that isn't an easy or quick fix, changing the mission profile mix would have made the fleets more effective. And since technical support staff and parts were seldom 100% available, prioritizing B-17 repairs would have made the more effective unit more available.
But they didn't realize it at the time. We have the benefit of hindsight, but it didn't become apparent how much better the B-17 was until at least mid-1944. By that point, the war was mostly won and switching B-24 production lines over would have been a bit of a task and would have probably hurt more than it helped the war effort.
no way they wouldve halted war production long enough to switch over production . now building b-17 factories instead of b-24 ones, now theres something they shouldve done.
Overall, the conclusion seems correct for Europe. However, few (none?) of the stats had an indication of 'error bars' (eg. Standard Deviation). So, difference of 30% are likely significant, but difference of a few% might be 'noise'. In some cases, it's difficult to read the document reference number to find, eg. details of errors. It'd be helpful to either put them in the videos Description, or superimpose a legible reference number (as is done in a few places), or maybe put them in Closed Captions.
Best Wishes. ☮
Have you seen anything on the effectiveness of the B-24 in the Pacific? Excellent research!
The B-17 just didn’t have the range for the Pacific. Everyone wanted the 24, especially Kenney of the 5th AF.
@@dougcastleman9518 The B-17 had more range than the B-24. How does it not have the range for the Pacific? Earlier on, the B-24 had the advantage. But by 1943, the B-17 had overtaken it.
Lets be clear, the B-24 was very effective. It just looks bad in comparison to the B-17.
@@sebclot9478 That just contradicts everything I have ever read about these bombers. The B-24 was considered a VLR aircraft and closed the Atlantic Gap, and Kenney only wanted that bomber for his long range missions in the South Pacific. The following is a quick copy and paste from a webpage on WW2…On high-altitude missions the Liberator had a maximum range of nearly 1,600 miles (2,600 km)-40 percent greater than that of its partner the B-17-but it had a service ceiling of only 28,000 feet (8,500 metres), some 7,000 feet (2,100 metres) below that of the B-17.
@@dougcastleman9518 A lot of what you have read is not correct or incomplete. Early B-24's had a range advantage, but the B-17 passed it after getting a fuel tank upgrade in 1943. Any combat ceiling advantage the B-17 had wasn't anywhere near 7000 feet. Some of the decisions you mention, like Kenney in the pacific and the use in the Atlantic were made before the fuel tank upgrade, and were partially about aircraft availability, as more B-24 were being built at that point. The B-24 did have one big advantage. More space in the fuselage. So in the situations where extra space was needed, the B-24 might be the better choice.
Why were more B-24s built? From the number I would bet it was a later aircraft. Was Boeing busy with the B-29, or was the B-24 less expensive or easier to build or someing?
Both companies weren't the sole producers of their aircraft, the amount made by the subcontractors is what makes the difference and the B24 had the Ford Willow Run plant that was specially built to produce it pumping out one an hour, and unlike the other aircraft plants it made it's own engine's for them as opposed to them being made by someone else and shipped to them.
The B-17 was actually less expensive.
There was an assumption early on the the newer B-24 would be the superior aircraft. It didn't play out that way, but they didn't know that would be the case at the time.
they had to replace more losses. actually it was just more industrial capital was devoted to b-24 production. look at the willow run plant!
Informative and well layed out video. Now I know the reality. Thanks!
Great video! Thanks!
What was the 5th Emergency Rescue Squadron of the 1st Air Division? 1:32 timeline.
Because the B24 was so bad it was the most produced of any US aircraft of WWII and of all time. Quite a feat.
The comparisons are a waste of time unless you define your comparison parameters first. If we stick to just the 8th Airforce daylight bombing campaign, then the B17 had some key advantages. It was easier to fly in tight formation, and it was thought (wrongly as it turned out) that a tight formation was the key to defending the unescorted bomber formations. Another key advantage was the Warren truss wing spar that was very strong and difficult to damage. US bomber did not face the same defensive force in any other theater
In other theaters the B24 had advantages that outweighed those of the B17, such as range, cruise speed and load. Hence the production numbers which speak for themselves.
Just so.
The B - 17 wasn't better overall.
It was better for raids on targets inside Germany and that was what it was mainly used for.
It's very telling that The Brits used the B - 24 extensively, the B - 17 not at all .
You need to send this to Lord hard thrasher, his B-17 sucks video is... Interesting.
How about fuel efficiency? Were the B-24s more efficient per gallon used than the B-17s? If so, this would matter if fuel was or might have been a bottleneck as it was for the Germans.
Yea, they had a longer range and is why the Pacific Air Force's commands preferred them to the B17, even the Navy preferred it because of it's range.
The problem with comparing the two is everyone always only looks at the 8th Air Force in Europe, "Gen Doolittle preferred the B17 so there you go", well the Pacific commands preferred the B24 and after a while had all B17's removed from the Pacific.
The reality is in the end they both pretty much evened out.
No, they did not.
@@dukecraig2402 The B-24 only had longer range very early on. The B-17 passed the B-24 in range. Plus leaders choosing one plane over the other doesn't automatically mean it was the better aircraft. And the difference was fuel capacity, not fuel economy.
You made persuasive argument for, if I were to ever travel back in time and I had to pick which I'd want to fly, I think B-17 seems like the obvious choice. I think you explained it pretty well, though maybe a little more emphasis on the higher B-24 deliveries might be in order. Would it be possible to look into how much of various resources went into the production of each bomber type, and man-hours per completed bomber? Like, okay, the B-24 sucks compared to the B-17, at least later in the war, so why bother with the B-24? More airframes seems like a decent answer, but were more airframes possible because it was cheaper to make a B-24, or because more factories were making B-24s? As I think about this, I can see how it becomes a topic for an economist historian. In terms of raw materials the B-17 and B-24 seem mostly comparable, but that doesn't matter much if specialized skills were necessary. And then there's the issue of B-29 production thrown into the mix.
For the same reason they had more than one fighter. But the B-24 was the much newer bomber. The expectation was that it was going to be better. It just didn't play out that way.
I thought the b 17 had 2 spars and the b 24 one, which made the difference
How close to seaworthy was the b-24?
Not close at all.
Just the facts ma'am!
B 24 looks like a diesel locomotive. Flies like one too 😂
I will throw the B-24 a bone because it made a superior long range, anti-submarine aircraft.
I wonder if the B-24s higher cruise speed also reduces bombing accuracy? Especially when the bombs aren't being dropped in one single salvo.
It didn't really have a higher cruising speed.
@@sebclot9478 depending on what your reading about 20-40 mph faster but I don't know about weights so might not be apples to apples figures.
@@corporalpunishment1133 I have never seen any data that supports those numbers. I don't think they are apples to apples at all.
@@sebclot9478 I'm just quoting google shite to get the real numbers you probably need to refer to the pilot manuals for weight and speeds. But in general aircraft with higher wing loading have a higher cruise speed.
accept in looks - 😊
Airplane novices: B-17 > B-24
People who kinda know planes: B-24 > B-17
Airplane experts: B-17 > B-24
I am surprised the early Hurricane Hunters were B-24's.
By the transitive principle, this video sets out to prove that both the B24 and B17 were less effective than the Avro Lancaster
I'm not sure how.
🍎🍏 Vs 🍊
The Lancaster was way better than either, but didn't come into service in any numbers until 1943.
@@alanpennie The Lancaster wasn't better.
In range and payload some light bombers could match the B-17. Those are two significant differences right there. Fully loaded, a B-17 couldn't reach any meaningful target in Europe
There is a reason they quit using them in the Pacific after 1942.😑
That is utter nonsense.
Boeing, led by engineering vs years-later Ford.
B24 gang seething rn
"You can prove anything even remotely true with facts....."
H. SIMPSON
Oohh, way to start a argument. Right up there with 45ACP vs 9mm and 1911 vs Glock.
P-47: produced in higher numbers, but not preferred by pilots nor commands
P-51: produced in lesser numbers, but superior
B-24: produced in higher numbers, but not preferred by pilots nor commands
B-17: produced in lesser numbers, but superior
P51 was more efficient, cost less to buy and operate.
B17 was superior in Europe.
@@nickdanger3802 P-51 had superior range, easier to train, required less maintenance, was more maneuverable at all altitudes, etc.
B-17 wasn't the star of PTO, but it still put up a good show, such as Old 666. But when competing against the B-29 in PTO, it's hard to shine.
@@SoloRenegade "less maintenance"
Fairly certain a Packard Merlin required more maintenance than a R2800.
By the end of the war in the Pacific B17's were doing Air Sea rescue.
@@nickdanger3802 " "less maintenance"
Fairly certain a Packard Merlin required more maintenance than a R2800."
the P-51 required FAR less maintenance than a P-47. And it wasn't just about the engine.
The Allison V12 was far easier to maintain than both the R2800 and Merlin.
@@SoloRenegadeHow well did the Allison-engined P-51s perform in comparison?
You said nothing about the unit cost or time required to produce each plane.
EcOnOmIcS
The B-17 was cheaper to produce too. In 1942, the B-17 was almost 50,000 cheaper per unit. The gap closed to 10,000 dollars by 1944.
All I'm saying that if a woman had a choice to enter a room with a B-17 or a room with a B-24, she'll say she'd rather be in the room with the B-24.
Don't kid yourself, the B-17's better looking, and is a much better dancer. Plus it can hold itself together and keep flying out of sheer spite after being a BF-109's chew toy.
@@josephglatz25 Yes, any rational woman wants to be with the B-17, but they are trying to make a point.
B-17 bomb load was usually 4000 lbs
Says every brit ever.
"normal bomb load of 6,000 lbs."
USAF Museum B17 page
@@nickdanger3802 8th AirForce Expert Roger Freeman wrote combat missions usually 4-5000 lbs often longer range were 4000. See his Mighty Eighth War Manual
@@Trojan0304 "typical 6,000 lb"
B-17 Bomber, an Introduction
WWII US Bombers
ruclips.net/video/6q-bU-Hiw1A/видео.html
@@Trojan0304
Well he was wrong, Freeman's book is good but over the year's many errors have come forth.
The typical load in the 8th Air Force for a deep penetration mission was twelve 500 lb general purpose bombs, 6,000 lbs.
The 4,000 lb loads had nothing to do with the B17's ability to lift it, altitude or range, it was simply because that was a mission flown dropping 100 lb bombs, there were 42 bomb stations inside the B17 and 40 could be loaded with 100 lb bombs, the last two stations couldn't have shackles put on them due to their location when the other 40 were used, with 100 lb bombs there simply wasn't enough space to fit more than 40.
Is bombload or range a meaningful measurement? Speed? Numbers produced?
All of these are meanings to reach more bombs on target and crew survivability. With both 17 outperformed 24
@@rinkashikachi eh. I guess. The video won't change my opinion about anything, but it was thorough, as usual. The ditching comparison was interesting and the smaller formations the Lib flew in as well.
@@robmarsh6668 B-17 had longer range. Speed was similar. B-24 was the more produced aircraft.
This is a very good question. If B-24s were tasked with hitting targets further away, then you would expect them to be attacked more simply because they were over enemy territory for longer. I know that many have stated that eventually the B-17 could match the range of the B-24, but were their payloads the same? If the B-24's payload was larger at range then I would expect them to be used for the longer missions. It's all in the details.
I am positive that the B-17 was the more survivable aircraft simply because it had a larger and more robust wing and wings are kind of essential.
All the best.
@@sebclot9478 b-24s were used for VLR patrols in atlantic not b17s. I would think because they had longer range.
Agree with your conclusion with a exception, that this is true for ETO. Also agree B17 superior bomber over B24 [easier to fly, better survival). In PTO with the poor Japanese AAA fire did the unmodified B24 do "better" than in the ETO?????? I do not have a copy of US SBS so I can not look this up.
The B-24 did fine in the ETO. It just didn't do as well as the B-17. Most of differences would have carried over. Easier to fly, easier to fly in formation, more durable, easier to ditch, etc, etc. This things aren't going to change due to the theater. However, other characteristics can be helpful that might not have come into play over Europe. Larger internal space for example.
Back when Boeing Built Better.
I have heard that the B17 took the air as if born to it, while the B24 was a rough bird to fly.
B-24 😭😭😭
Comment
The B24 was longer range and more versatile. Not as easy to fly from what I understand. It might have carried a bigger bomb load.🤔
Earlier versions had longer range, but not later versions.
Actually the B-17 has a .4% higher loss rate than the 24 in WWII😂
If you had been paying attention you would know that is wrong in cases where they flew together (the 15th).
@@Milkmans_Son I was paying attention kiddo , that doesn’t matter.. overall attrition is what matters.. and B-24s flew more miles per plane.. and many more over open water as a patrol bomber. B-24 is obviously a better bomber than the B-17 and I am obviously a better man than you. I win twice!! 🥇 🥇
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You’re mad now
@@guaporeturns9472Lol go for a Trifector😂
@@guaporeturns9472 If stupid could fly, you'd be a jet.
@@Milkmans_Son But a cool jet… a stupid , cool jet. Like an F-104 or a Lightning
Only a modified mosquito could carry 4000 lbs. A b-17 could carry almost three times that.
Bomb load would vary with target distance.
@@carrotsixyes, but saying the b-17 could only carry 4000 lbs is just a lie. When most bomb loads were from 6-8000 lbs.
@@xmeda that's not the argument. Many say the b-17 could only carry 4000 lbs to any where. And the b-17 could carry 8000 lbs to Berlin.
@@kirktravis5780 No, the B-17 typically carried 4,000 to 5,000 lbs of bombs to Berlin. With the fuel wasted to form up before heading East to Berlin, 8,000 lb loads was simply impossible.
@@kirktravis5780 Most B-17 bomb loads were 4,500 lbs NOT 6-8,000 lbs.
Lot of butt hurt people in the comments.
24 was better
Why
It blows my mind that something as small as "difficult to reach position of the lever" might have such impact on the overall performance of the weapon... and no one moved the damned lever to the different place! 😅
As an engineer, I’m sure someone thought of it, but then saw how many changes would be needed and promptly forgot about it. Pretty common in my field.
UX matters!
To this day, some "features" of the cockpits used in WW2 are still present and nearly impossible to change. A flight deck engineer told me once that they had to lobby for a few decades to change or remove a switch, and I can't remember if they were successful or not.
At least there is a standard for the instrument panels after the war. I believe during the war some US aircraft manufacturers started to standardize
My father was a B-24 flight engineer in the 492nd BG, the only bomb group to be disbanded due to excessive losses. Dad loved the Liberator and would jokingly refer to the B-17 as Brand X. Ironically his last flight in a bomber was from Stalag Luft I to Camp Lucky Strike - in a B-17!
While the overall sentiment among crews was that the B-17 was superior, it wasn't exclusive. There were crews that preferred the B-24. Or at least they said so on the survey.
My dad was a B-24 Flight Engineer with the 451st Bomb Group.
Said it before, but my father was a B-24 pilot in the 15th in Italy, 30 missions plus some Lone Wolf sorties. He would agree with these comments. He had no love for the '24. Unlike the '17, you had to fly it every second. Missions were exhausting (and these pilots were just kids). They were death traps if those on the flight deck had to bail out. In training, Dad and his copilot missed their parachute course as their briefing ran late. They hustled over to the training area, chutes in hand, but the session was over. A sergeant sitting on the back of a truck, smoking a cigarette, called out, "You boys here for the bailout training?" They nodded. The sergeant laughed, "Forget it. You'd never get out of that crate alive."
Hard to argue with the backup provided.
You stay out of it. lol
Interesting, I'd have thought the B24 a more stable platform due to the high-wing layout and twin vertical stabilisers. I wonder if the high-aspect wing ratio made it ticklish to fly? The ditching characteristics are also surprising. Anyway, the data doesn't lie.
The ditching characteristics are easy to explain. The lower wing of the B-17 gave it more buoyancy.
The ditching characteristics make sense with the high wing. Instead of having a big wing to absorb the impact, the B24 would absorb everything on a much narrower fuselage.
Can someone help me understand how, with identical loads, the B-17 had more range in Europe, while the B-24 had more range in the Pacific? 3:20 Seems to violate basic math we all learned in elementary school. What am I missing?
You really had to tear down my B-24 didn’t you…
It’s important to note that these observations apply to the ETO. The B-24 overall was the better bird for the PTO.
Greater range ... made it good for antisubmarine warfare in the Atlantic, too.
It was more often used, but the isn't the same as being better.
@@sebclot9478 I think the contextual qualifier (“ETO”) which is constantly stated in the video is meant to express precisely that. The ETO meant two things that the PTO did not: flak and altitude. At the same time, the PTO involved range demands the ETO did not. Any airplane’s relative virtues and vices comes down to context. Overall, I like the B-17 better than the B-24, but I have little question that the B-24 was better suited to the PTO. I stand by my statement.
@@sebclot9478 The B-24 largely replaced the B-17 in the PTO over time because the B-17s were often too range-limited to perform the missions. B-17s were what was available early in the war, so there was indeed experience with them. Full production of the B-24 was not reached until sometime in 1943, so it took a while for them to become available.
The advantages of the B-24, speed and range, were largely at lower altitudes than eventually used in the ETO. The B-17's larger, fatter wing was a feature that reduced range and speed and initially seen as a disadvantage. The extra lift turned into an advantage once missions began moving to ever higher altitudes with thinner air. Altitudes of well over 20,000ft were not anticipated in the 1930's, when both bombers were designed (this was also an issue for the Norden bombsight). The engines to reach those heights were not yet developed and it was inconceivable that anti-aircraft fire would be accurate that far up or that fighters would progress so far. The B-24 was produced in higher numbers and expected to replace the B-17 since it looked so much better on paper for the scenarios anticipated.
The low drag and even higher speed suggested by B-24 wind-tunnel models was not realized in the production planes. It turned out that the remarkable properties of the Davis Wing were from laminar flow, something not well understood at the time. Although achieved in finely finished wind-tunnel models, the required surface finish and precise wing profiles could not be replicated with the full-scale mass production methods of the time.
The ease of flying of individual aircraft was not really considered hugely important and seen largely as a skill and training issue. This was a problem with other aircraft as well. The production board was more concerned with volume of production than refinement of designs.
@@David-ic4by That argument can be made. But the decision in the PTO was made before the range upgrade. After that, it may well have bureaucratic inertia that kept it there. Plus they were just building more B-24's. Availability was a consideration in the decision making there.
Interesting stuff. Great video as always.
All this applies to formation bombing in the ETO and granted the B-17 was better for that but the B-24 clearly showed its usefulness in the Atlantic anti-submarine role with the Navy and RAF Coastal Command. Including the Pacific theater the B-24 and PB4Ys showed range and versatility mostly displacing the B-17. In the big picture both planes had their purpose but the B-24s and PB4Ys distinguished themselves everywhere in WW2
What about tons on target per aircraft loss, and tons on target per crew casualty? A graph of those over time would be great to see.
Where "on target" = within 1000 feet of aim point
I like the 'just the facts' delivery of this video.. can you compare the B17 to the Lancaster?
What a dumb headline... from such a technically savvy channel at that!!
For one thing, the B-24 was the most heavily produced four engine aircraft of the war BY FAR - 18,000+ vs 12,731 B-17s.
It flew higher, faster and farther then the B-17, and although it was not as durable against enemy gunfire as the B-17 was, in the Pacific bombing missions there were far more Liberators used than the above 18/13 ratio of B-24s produced to B-17s - even if you add on the thousand B-29s in the last year of the war. The heavy bomb loads of the B-24s blasting Japanese airbases, ports, railroads, supply depots, troop concentrations and oil facilities were a big reason U.S. losses were so much less than Japanese losses - the twin engined Japanese Betty bombers couldn't compare in destructive firepower (and were far more easily shot down) so heavy raids took Japanese bases out of action, while U.S. bases were easily able to recover from enemy raids.
And for coastal watch, search & rescue, and above all for anti-submarine work over the middle of the Atlantic - COMBAT missions - the B-24s were vastly superior, which is why the AAF, the navy, the Brits and Australians used far more of them than any other 4 engine aircraft.
U.S. aircraft production and pilot training stats were the hallmarks of Allied victory in WW II, and the B-24 was the undisputed queen - production rates rivaling smaller and far less expensive (or complex) single engine fighters
"These limitations were to become apparent before the new offensive was many weeks old. Meanwhile it was considered desirable to explain our intentions to the Americans. To this end a special review was prepared by the British Chiefs of Staff. 'Our policy at present,' it announced, 'is to concentrate upon targets which affect both the German transportation system and civilian morale, thus exploiting weaknesses already created by the blockade. Since the targets seleced lie within highly industrial and thickly populated areas the efect upon German morale is considerable. As oufr forces increase, intend to pass to a planned attack on civilian morale with the intensity and continuity which are essential if a final breakdown is to be produced."
page 378
Royal Air Force 1939-1945 Vol I
The RUclips channel HardThresher did a video over a year ago "The B-17-Was Crap". While I disagree with some of his video, he makes a valid and compelling argument that the B-17 had severe issues. One of his biggest argument was the poor bomb load of B-17 over long ranges, ones which were easily surpassed by the Lancaster and Mosquito over the same ranges. I think a large part of the issue for B-17 and B-24 were tactics. Insisting on attacking very heavily fortified positions in day light, where as the British bombed by night. I think a lot of his video is on point however, but the fact remains that the B-17 s and B-24s were the only viable aircraft the US had for long range bombing and I also think that the B-29s would not have faired much better. It was the insistance of the higher ups in the USAF to do daylight precision bombing against heavily defended targets deep in Axis controlled territory that resulted in the heavy losses the US experienced. However, it should be noted that this also caused massive losses to the Luftwaffe.....after the introduction of long ranged fighter escorts, and as a result an overall benefit to all the allies fighting Germany. I love the B-17, but it is important to understand that while it was the best the U.S. had to offer for the missions it was presented with, it had many shortcomings that different tactics, and other aircraft with those tactics, might have been better accomplishing. The losses of the 8th air force were astonishing high and in my opinion not necessary if night time bombing had been used instead. Losing 10 men and a bomber for one man in a fighter was not a good trade by any stretch of the imagination.
I will never forget the footage that was made by the Swiss Army showing emergecy landings with damaged B 24s in Dübendorf Zuerich. Those Liberators came down extremely fast and the front landing gear sheared of many, many times. I was screaming to myself: slower, for Heave's sake come down slower!
I had the luck to meet a Swiss veteran airplane mechanic from WW2. He was responsible to study the bombers that landed in Switzerland. He told me terrible stories of extremely wounded pilots and crew members, suffering terrible pain: He specially recalled a pilot who had a bullet wound: The bullet had entered his foot and went up through the entire leg and was stuck in his hip bone. The copilot was dead so he had to land like that. He also needed to use both his feet to steer and land the plane!
If this is correct, why were there way more B24s built? If the leaders believed these figures, why didn't they demand more B17s be built? Did they just not care about the lives of those crews flying the B24s? Even if they just didn't care about the lives of the B24 crews, if they believed the B17 was so superior, why didn't they demand more B17s be built so that the enemy could be destroyed faster, with fewer crews being killed, and the war coming to an end faster?
What was more effective against a head on attack. The B17G with bendix chin turret or the B24H with the Emerson turret?
Saddest thing is two mosquitoes could carry just as much as either a b-17 or b-24 and had a loss rate of .63 while the loss rate for the b17 is 7.5% and a little better for the b24.
The version of the Mosquito that could carry a 4000lb bomb load was specially adapted to carry a single 4000 lb “ Cookie”. Hardly comparable.
The saddest thing is that people still believe this nonsense about the Mosquito. It couldn't touch B-17 or B-24 bomb loads, nor could it serve in either role. This is a nonsensical, video game player narrative that has just taken hold in some internet circles.
A bit like the RAF,those who flew the lanc said it was better than the Halifax lol and vice versa. What's the opinion of those who flew both in the same theatre
You're work is outstanding!
And yet the B-24 was the most produced bomber. Go figure.
Could more B-17's have been made? My father-in-law flew a B-24.
Great detail and thorough discussion
B24 was generally a mean horse that had to be "wrangled" and when on bombsight/auto pilot that's fatal to accurate bombing
Very interesting. 👍