B-24 versus B-17

Also on more thing about 4750 b-17s were lost due to enemy action
i do not have the numbers for the 24
sorry
Brian

Are your refering to all theaters of war or just ETO?
 
 
Terry T.

I think the quotes speak for themselves. The total lost is for all b-17s manufactured. The rest are quoted in my responses. That is all the info I have available currently.
 
Brian Angeloni

It maybe out there some place but I have NEVER seen a collection of B-24s  like these B-17s and kept on ticking.
 
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/

Gregg,   On the same Site, if you toggle down to "Miscellaneous," there are several incredible, yet sad photos, of damaged Libs.  I've also searched around the WWW, and there are many video clips, photos, paintings and just a potpourri of uncollected info.  I am sure that someone will come up with a composite.  Still as long as there are Vets, Historians, Passionate Lovers of Libs/Forts (my unbashed preference for the FO WR Lib), Friends and Family members, I am sure the good-natured debate will continue.  It still remains that the "best of the two A/C's was the one that brought you home!"  Best Regards!  Steven

Amen!
 
You are completely correct. I did not mean it to be anything but somemore good natured debate.
 
Have yourself a Blessed Sunday.

Just as an aside since we took a slight "tangent" here, but thought I'd post this pic of an incident that occurred at FO WR in December of '43.  Even before the "fly-away" or combat, accidents happen on the ground.  What is interesting in this pic is all the "background activity," i. e. vehicles, continuing airport work and some "refurbishing," I believe, at the "gun butt."  Best Regards!  Steven

[image]local://11777/31F91F8EA9B3425D82E7F1261BD6C990.jpg[/image]

Attached Image(s)

I specifically asked my father about lightening the load to reach altitude. I won't tell you what he said exactly about that concept. He did say that they never did that in his group. He believes he saw an aircraft once drop part of his load on route because he lost an engine and was struggling to keep up with the formation and they were deep in enemy territory.

Mr. Newby seems to be relating a single episode in the passage you quoted. I cannot believe that this was a common occurrence. The mission planner that calculated the fuel and bomb loads would have his a** handed to him if that were often the case.

Well, I have to revise my comments. I did ask my father before and he was quite dismissive of the concept of dropping bombs to reach altitude in the B-24. I think it was the way I asked the question that he replied as he did. He wrote the following in 1992 and when I asked him about it he said, "No we didn't have to lighten our load to reach altitude. That wasn't the problem. Our problem was being left behind by leaders that didn't take the rear ship into account in their flying and being able to keep up."

Here is what he wrote:

"Late in October for four out of five days I flew practice missions and on the sixth day, the 29th, with only three completed missions under my belt I got into trouble. We were on our way to Regensberg, Germany when our formation ran into a solid line of clouds lying across the Adriatic. In an attempt to climb over this weather front our leader added lots of power and this raised havoc with those of us who were flying "Tailend Charlies." Each time we fell a bit behind we didn't have enough extra power to pull back into formation. At least one other pilot dropped a bomb to lighten his load so I told Frank to follow his lead. While I had seen it done on my other three missions this was the first time for me but I felt that it would be better to arrive at the target without a full bomb load than to have to turn back with a blown engine. Even with this lighter load I was still having problems so I had Frank get rid of a second bomb. Our Group was not able to find a way through or over the weather and the mission was aborted thus I landed back at Torretta with two bombs missing.

"That evening I was called to Squadron Operations where Major Ed Goree, our Squadron C.O., told me to sit down and pushed a letter across his desk. He sat back and carefully watched as I read a memorandum from the acting Group C.O. ordering me to inform him in writing why I had jettisoned my bombs. I was obviously distressed by this for when I landed that afternoon I felt that the Group Leader had been the villain by using too much power and I the hero for doing everything possible to keep up. Now I was the villain and this reprimand would become a permanent part of my records. Seeing my anguish, in the manner of a coach to a member of his team, Maj. Goree asked what happened. I explained that when I had a problem in keeping up I dropped two bombs to reduce my load for I was under the impression that it was standard procedure. Rather than chewing me out as some CO's would, after a short pause he said that he would help me word my reply and would add a sentence saying that he had instructed his pilots to do this if they had difficulties. Despite his assistance I was floored by this unexpected rebuke as the letter might block my promotion or my remaining in the service after the war. The latter didn't matter as I had no intention of staying but it sure miffed me. Maj. Goree was the one positive aspect of this episode and afterwards I knew that we had a Squadron Leader who was willing to stick his neck out to give one of his men a helping hand. I don't know if the same letter was sent to the others who had dropped their bombs but word quickly got around and no more bombs were released by the Group's pilots to lighten their loads."

So, dad confirms that it did happen.

Ken

I've been doing some reading, researching, reviewing various "Threads" on this Site and looking at pictures lately about formation flying.  What I have not seen or read about within the 8th or 15th AAF are "formations in which both B-24's and B-17's would fly together integrating the same combat boxes within a formation."  Would this have happened as part of a regular mission or only by necessity in the event that a mixed formation was heavily damaged by flak or fighters before, during or after the bombing run as mutual protection?  I was thinking of making this a separate post, but thought it fit best here.  Best Regards!  Steven

Steven...I am surprised at your question....much has been made of the different formation speeds of the two aircraft...the B-24 was supposed to be faster.

In addition.... in the 15th at least...the B-24s flew at 24,000 ft and the B-17s flew at 27,000 to 29,000 ft during my tour.

We actually passsd the B-24 formations..this was explained, as due to the difference in the atmospheric pressure..the pressure at 20,000 ft was down to roughly 2.5 while the pressure at 27,000 ft had dropped even further....therefore, the actual TRUE airspeed, allowed the slower INDICATED airspeed of the B-17, to exceed the faster INDICATED B-24.

In effect, then, the True airspeed was actually faster for the B-17, than for the B-24.

So, I don't think there was much mixing of the two aircraft, as the B-24 due to it's Davis Wing was prone to a tendency to stall, when flyng along with the B-17, at the same indicated airspeed, at any altitude above the 24,000 ft bombing altitude of the B-24.

That is not to say, on an individual basis that it could not be accomplished, however, the mixing of the two aircraft on a mission was doubtful.

Just my opinion...perhaps there will be a better answer from a B-24 pilot and a B-17 pilot....by the way, I do have a Private Pilot license, and I have been exposed to the subject of True versus Indicated airspeeds.

Jim :-)

Steven -
In 8th AF , The B - 24 and B - 17 never Flew together.
B - 24 Pilot -  " The B - 24 gets you Home Faster ".
B - 17 Pilot -  " The B - 17 gets you Home more Often ".
Mike
 

How about in the Pacific? I am not saying they did fly on the same missions, but I thought I had read they did on a early mission. Once the B-24 was established it was no longer necessary, but early on they had soooooooooo little equipment in the Pacific this had to be done.
 
I continue to read where the Pacific War Air Corp seemed to get the leftovers and little equipment until the Air Corp Units in England were first taken care of.
 
The 42 Squadron was down to 4 B-17s on its last mission in February 1943 only one returned and crashed land the other three crews were never seen again. That might have happened in Europe, but someone would have known where some of the crews died or were buried not so with the 42 Sq. 11 BG H in 1942 and into early 1943.
 
Again how many 42 Squadron Pilots come here from those early years, none. In February 1943 they had pilot left and the 42nd ground crews were sent home from the Pacific to Hickam.
 
They were recommended and received for the Unit Citation by the Navy and it was the same one they presented to the Marines, this only happened ONCE and it happened to a Pacific Air Corp Unit. A sister Service Recommended another branch for an award, medal and presented to the other Brand. (Found in Fortress Against the Sun) 
 
They also went on to get the Presidential Unit Citation for the Air Corp in addition.    
 
Go to this link, it was just published in March of 2008 by the brother of one of those three planes that never returned. It is 14 MB PDF file at the botton of the page or link. Is well done and carefully researched. It is an outstanding and probably the most current published report on the 42 Sq. to date.
 
http://txspace.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/6421


[image]local://14753/EC652DA7FC974FE99426964001A0E1EA.jpg[/image]

[image]local://14753/50F56B3F5937467E998FA0964E42C4A5.jpg[/image]

Attached Image(s)

My experience, 44 missions B-24, agrees with your treatis. We lost good control of our planes rapidly as we passed about 22000 feet. The 17 could noticeably fly higher and hold a formation. For us, the controls got "mushy", and we could not hold the tight formation neccessary for a good mission.
RHD

I tend to agree with Jim and RHD. During my tour the 2 planes never flew in the same group. Although on one mission, 11/2/43 max effort, we had a B24 group fly behind our B17 group, our altitude was 24,500 feet,the 24s were either at the same height or maybe 500 feet lower.
12 B24s and 2 B17s went down, our max effort was perhaps 130-150 planes over the target.

Jim,  Thanks for straightening me out!  Actually I was just curious as things aren't always as they appear, and even though I had read several threads (includinjg this one) in which air speeds came into question, I was still curious.  Always appeciate your time and insights!
 
Mike,  Liked your stats and quote!  No, matter how you cut it, they both were great A/C's! 
 
Best Regards!  Steven

This is directly from this sites day by day of the War. It sounds like the B-17s and B-24s did go on this mission together. 
 
4 B-17's and 3 B-24's bomb shipping in Kiska Harbor from an altitude of 700 ft, lowest altitude yet. 2 cruisers are hit and one scout seaplane is downed. 2 B-17's are heavily damaged but return to base. Japanese bomb Nazan Bay, Atka
 
http://www.armyairforces.com/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx

I am sure in the eary days of the Pacific, that there were missions that the B17 and B-24 did go on missions together....they used what was available.
 
Also, in North Africa,the 376th BG, prior to the actual certification as the 376th BG, when it was still the Halpro Project, had 8 to 9 B-17s from India attached to assist in the war against Rommel, and which flew together on missions.
But, these were not the norm.
 
The 376th BG also had 4 B-24s that flew as the Yugoslavian Air Force attached to the Group, accordng to the 376th History book.
 
Jim :-)

Brian--Terry      Ray Wagner's " American Combat Planes " ( the first book I ever bought ,in 1961) has tables for statistics , fighters and bombers in Europe (presumably including the Mediterranean).

No doubt his figures will vary with other published material but they are certainly a good guide.........

B-17 sorties 291,508, lost in combat 4,688  = 1.61 per 100 sorties (by my reckoning)
B-24 sorties 226,775, lost in combat 3,626  = same loss rate.

Interestingly the fighter with the lowest lost rate was not the one you would expect...
the P-39, 107 losses in 30,547 sorties or 0.35 per 100 sorties.
Highest rate was the P-38, 1,758 from 129,849 sorties , or 1.4 per 100.

for comparison, the premier RAF heavy bomber the Lancaster ---in night raids on GERMANY ---lost 2,508 from 83,881 dispatched, a rate of 3.02 per 100.
Out of 7,374 built, 2687 were missing on ops by day & night----or 36.4 %.
Most in one night was 96, the Nuremberg raid of 30/31 March 1944.                           Nick

Tonight, I thought I'd add a post from "Janos" who had responded to me in a post on another Thread which I thought appropriate to add onto this Thread.  Best  Regards!   Steven
 
Steven,
First of all I do not extol one AAF plane over another because, not having flown in anyone of them I am not qualified to pass judgement on said planes. I do like to pass on things that I have read about the planes from qualfied people. The following; As a new century dawned, some 55 years after the fifteenth Air Force had finished it's wartime mission, US Air Force Col John M Hudson sifted through memorabila left behind by his late father, a bombadier in the 450th BG, Hudson recalled; "although he spoke very little of combat, he always extolled the virtures of the "ugly" B-24 versus the "pretty B-17."

_____________________________

Fair Winds and following seas.
John, (GM 3/C USS Frost DE 144)

Kin to LT. John W. Farnkopf
15th AAF, 52 FG, 4th FS; Madna, Italy
MIA 11/11/44 remains found 12/8/53

For my last day at work the gang gave me a card with enough money to purchase a copy of the book "One Damned Island after Another"  considered to be the best historical history of the 7 TH Army Air Corp, 11 BG H from the Attack on Hickam to the wars end.

On page 132 it states, this was in 1943 16 months after Hickam was attacked.

"The men of the Seventh accepted the change (from B-17s to B-24s) simply as further proof that they were a bastard outfit-foredoomed to fly airplanes that no body else wanted.
 
The feeling against the B-24s persisted so strongly that General Hale found it necessary to relieve the Group Commander and one squadron commander of the 90 TH. group; the disparaging statements made by members of the group about the B-24 had reached even General Arnold in Washington.
 
The bitterness lessened but did not altogether die when on December 22 1943 Colonel William A Matheeny lead a flight of 26 Liberators to Wake Island."
 
Interesting since this book was published in 1946 and memories were still pretty strong and the war was only over by months.