B-24 versus B-17

I loved to see B24s flying with us on misssions because if we were attacked by enemy fighters they only went after the B24s and stayed away from the B17s.
But as Steven said ---- the plane that brought you back was the best plane

Jules-- to support your experience with Luft going after the 24s a passage in a book Log Book, a pilots life by Crocker Snow he quotes a study done by 8th AF experts in which the preference is due to the B17s Sperry top turret vs the manual turret of the B24- in other than head on clashes the Sperry could figure out the geometry whereas it was too subtle for a manual top turret

Steve- I worked around the F111(a decendent of the B24) for about 4 years back in the Viet Nam era, and the press were always ready to pile on criticism-- by the time the B1 devel prog came along, instructions came down that there were no 'problems' on that plane, only 'anomalies'.

Interesting thread. I would like to add a couple of points.

Point One:

Coincidently, the ratio of B-17s to B-24s manufactured is 17:24, that is for every seventeen B-17s built there were twenty-four B-24s produced.

Also the ratio of losses was the same when compared to how many of each were manufactured. That is for every seventeen B-17s lost there were twenty-four B-24s lost. One wasn't any safer in one than the other. This statistic suggests the enemy didn't particularly care which one they shot down.

With that said, I have read accounts from Luftwaffe pilots saying they preferred going after B-24s. Some said they were easier to shoot down, maybe because of the design or that they flew at a lower elevation. Others said they were scared of colliding with the B-17's huge tail.

Point Two

The inside demensions of the heavy bomber bomb bays were the same as they were designed to carry the same bombs. The difference is the B-24 had two bomb bays while the B-17 only had one. The stats say the B-17 could carry 6,000 lbs and the B-24 could carry 8,000 lbs, but that is spec talk. One can only fit so many bombs into a bomb bay and will always fill the space capacity before reaching the weight capacity.

Given the type of bombs are the same, the B-24 could always carry twice as many bombs as the B-17s. It took two B-17s to drop the same payload as one B-24. In the numbers game, the 2nd AD could deliver just as many bombs as the 1st and 3rd ADs combined.

Knowing B-24s had twice the payload of the B-17s, if you were a Luftwaffe commander and had the choice, which one would you prefer to attack or try to eliminate? I'm sure if the US had B-29s in Europe they would have been the Luftwaffe's top priority.

Paul Arnett
web historian and curator
www.492ndbombgroup.com

Paul...I don't know what the B-24 bomb load in the 2nd Division actually carried on missions...however, I have been informed that  the B-24s of the 15th carried the EXACT same bomb load as the B-17s on a mission....6 ea 1000 lb bombs or 12 ea 500 lb bombs, even though the capacity was double in the B-24.
 
According to LeRoy Newby, a bombardier in the 460th BG in Italy ; ... he has made a statement in his book ...
Ploesti..A View from the Bombsight,...that in order to gain 500 ft altltude in climb, that a 500 lb had to be released, and that many times his formation went over the target with either one bomb or no bombs, by the time the formation climbed from 20,000 ft to the assigned altitude of 24,000 ft.
 
I also have talked with a B-24 pilot from a BG in Italy that said the B-24 was "mushy" at altitudes of around 20,000 ft plus.
 
My personal opinion,is that the B-24 statistics are somewhat exaggerated, especially in the claim that the B-24 was designed to fly HIGHER, faster and further than the B-17....and this only applied to the early B-17s.
With the addition of the tokio tanks to the B-17 the difference in range was almost neglible.  The actual airspeed in the B-24 climb in Italy, was 165 MPH, and as a flight engineer on the B-17, our climb speed was 155 MPH....although, I think RHDodd, a B-24 pilot, said, if I can recall correctly, that his B-24 climb airspeed was 160 MPH.
 
I also have heard that there were times in the 8th AAF, that the B-24s were sent on a diversionary mission, and did not carry any bombs. Is this last true ?
 
As you may have guessed by now, I am not impressed with the B-24, but only with the aircraft, not the aircrews....I have stated this before, I wonder about the Consolidated Engineers who designed the  B-24,who would only put one engine driven hydraulic pump on a mainly hydraulic operated aircraft, especially when the B-17 was designed 4-5 years EARLIER....I wuld have thought that the shortcomings of the B-17 would have called for improvements in design over the B-17...although looking at today's aircraft, Boeing is still in existance, where the others, including Comsolidated,  have fallen by the wayside, or have been absorbed.
 
Also of note, is that there are some 12 B-17s still registered with the FAA to fly,  with only two B-24s, along
with several  PB4Y-2s, used until recently as water bombers, of which only one is still registered to fly (subject to correction).
 
Jim :-)
 

James S. Peters Sr. T/Sgt B-17 Flt Engr, 27 missions 99 BG, 348BS, 5th Wing, 15th AAF Tortorella, (Foggia#2), Italy My Tour was from 12/03/44-06/19/45 M/Sgt USAF (Retired)

Jim,
 
Not being there and also not wishing to cast any doubts about the veracity of LeRoy Newby, I find it rather difficult to believe that enough bombs had to be dropped in order to reach prescribed  altitude and then not have any left for the target. There had to be a reason to fly a mission to a target beside just going for a ride. If you didn't have anything to do damage with, why go at all. Surely the top brass could figure this out and do something different in order for a mission to accomplish a purpose.
 
Vic

Vic Walzel, brother of 1st Lt Leland H. Walzel, bombardier with the 93rd Bomb Group, 330th Squadron. KIA 6 March 1944 on his 25th mission.
www.lelandwalzel.150m.com

ORIGINAL: Boomerang 717

Interesting thread. I would like to add a couple of points.


Point Two

The inside demensions of the heavy bomber bomb bays were the same as they were designed to carry the same bombs. The difference is the B-24 had two bomb bays while the B-17 only had one. The stats say the B-17 could carry 6,000 lbs and the B-24 could carry 8,000 lbs, but that is spec talk. One can only fit so many bombs into a bomb bay and will always fill the space capacity before reaching the weight capacity.

Given the type of bombs are the same, the B-24 could always carry twice as many bombs as the B-17s. It took two B-17s to drop the same payload as one B-24. In the numbers game, the 2nd AD could deliver just as many bombs as the 1st and 3rd ADs combined.

.

 
Paul,
If you are interested in the facts of bomb delivery amounts, may I suggest a review of an authoritative objective source of history.  I sampled a look at Roger Freeman's Mighty Eighth War Diary for the periods in early '43 and later '44 for a mission by mission record of the tonnage dropped by all divisions and each type of aircraft.
These records seem to support Jim's opinion that actual bomb loads for both aircraft were about the same.  My observation of the records indicated in early '43 the bomb loads ran from 2.1 tons to 2.4 tons by both B-17's and B-24's.  Later in the war it appeared the bomb loads were a little higher for both bombers running about 2.6 tons each.  These numbers are based on the Effective number of bombers and not on the number launched.
Your notion that the B-24's carried twice the bomb load is not support by the facts as they appear to me.

Bob Gilbert
S/Sgt, 35 missions 
Ball Turret Gunner, Goldin crew
381st Bomb Gp., 533rd Bomb Sq.
US 8th Air Force

Vic....Quote from Newby's book Target Ploesti- A View from the Bombsight...pp 166. (Newby flew with the 460th BG).

We were accustomed to seeing the B-17s up there at 30,000 ft, watching thier poor brethren below.Our group was one of those slated for over 24,000 ft. We knew20,000 ft to 22,000 ft was our normal bombing altitude with a full bomb load and gas load.
We also knew the difficulty of reaching a 24,000 ft plus altitude. The few thousand feet farther away from the flak guns was of course welcome, but we were concerned about reaching the new heights assigned us.
It was all part of the changing offensive and defensive strategies in the battle for Hitler's oil and his Luftwaffe. As the fighter force dwindled, more flak guns were added at Ploesti,hence the higher bombing altitudes.

As our group crossed the Adriatic, and began its climb on course at a little steeper angle than usual, we all were nervous. Even the planes seemed nervous as they inched their way up past the  22,000 ft mark. Apparently atmospheric conditions were working against us. The heavily loaded bombers shuddered and shook as the superchargers struggled to furnish enough oxygen to feed the thirsty Pratt and Whitney engines.  Without the superchargers, the engines would be nearly worthless at that high altitude.

Many of the struggling bombers began to show evidence of stalling at around 23,000 ft. As they continued their climb, pilots began to making moves to  prevent this. Bomb bay doors would open. A 1,000 lb bomb would fall out. The pilot had bought a little time, and could stay with the formation for awhile. No one wanted to reach a stalling situation where the airplane would simply fall over on one wing and start into a dive, or worse, into a spin. The line between stalling and almost stalling is a thin one, and once you cross it, you have your work cut out for you .Bombs began falling from out of nearly all the planes in our group. Soon some were discarding their second bomb as the altitude needles crept up toward the 24,000 ft mark. It was this or drop out of formation and go home alone. The decision was simple. Hang in there at all costs!
It would be known later that some pilots had dropped all thier bombs before they even started the bomb run. They would rather face the flak with an empty bomb bay,than drop out of formation and go home alone. We had dropped one bomb before we reached the IP and despite this relief, our engines were suffering.

This substantiates my remarks, in my opinion.
 
Jim :-)

James S. Peters Sr. T/Sgt B-17 Flt Engr, 27 missions 99 BG, 348BS, 5th Wing, 15th AAF Tortorella, (Foggia#2), Italy My Tour was from 12/03/44-06/19/45 M/Sgt USAF (Retired)

Jim,
 
I didn't doubt your word but I didn't see anything that indicated this was a common occurence. Possibly the mission he was citing was enough for the brass to see that it wasn't practical to ask the group to do something that was very hard to do and expect very good bombing results. Maybe I am a little naive or dense (maybe both) but it just doesn't seem practical to ask crews to do something that had very little chance of being effective in doing any damage to the target. Group integrity would have been maintained if the whole group had returned  when it was evident that little could be accomplished at the target area.
 
Vic

Vic Walzel, brother of 1st Lt Leland H. Walzel, bombardier with the 93rd Bomb Group, 330th Squadron. KIA 6 March 1944 on his 25th mission.
www.lelandwalzel.150m.com

Vic:
 I found this on the web..very intersting..
http://www.unc.edu/~landon/combat.html
 
 
 
Combat Diary of Clyde Gregory Whitt
577th Squadron / 392nd BG
2nd Air Division / 8th Air Force


(All words are from his diary except for those notes which are in italics)

---

September 9, 1943 : From a letter to one of his brothers while he was at Flexible Gunnery School at Fort Myers, Florida "I'll tell you what I'm going to be but don't you dare write and tell Mother for she don't know yet and I want to tell her when I go home. Besides she will worry herself if she finds it out. I'm now in Gunner School and when I finish I'll be a gunner on a B24 or B26."

Monday - April 24, 1944 :
Flew with an old crew as right waist gunner. Had no fighter attacks and was I glad. Little flak although we got hit in right wing with 88mm. 18 degrees below although it seemed colder. My heated shoes and gloves went out but made it OK. Made a good hit on the target. Altitude 18,000 ft. On oxygen 7 hours. 8 hours 35 minutes flying time. Airdrome in Germany (Leipheim) was target.

Thursday - April 27, 1944 :
Flew with own crew as right wing gunner. No fighter attacks. Lot of flak and it was real accurate. Altitude 20,000. 20 degrees below. Target was Chalon-Sur-Marne, France - railway yards. 5 hours 5 minutes flying time. No trouble with heated clothing. Did not drop bombs due to trouble with bomb bay doors.

Saturday - April 29, 1944 :
Flew with Lt. Reed's crew as nose gunner. I checked my turret in the air and it would not work in elevation. Soon afterward I fixed it. The target was Berlin. We were about 15 minutes from the initial point when about 5 fighters attacked us from 12 o'clock. I put my sight on one and followed him through until he went under our right wing. We, then knowing we were hit, made a sharp turn to the left and got out of formation. We were at about 24,000 when hit and, after turning, started down towards the clouds. Lt. Reed then checked the crew to see if anyone had been hit. Everyone was OK. Lt. Reed brought the ship to England on A-5. As soon as we got inland a few miles we bailed out. The ship was hit in #2 and #4 engines, bombay, cockpit, and radio compartment. Shot out hydraulic lines and gas lines. We were hit by ME-109s. Bail out at 1:20pm. We all landed near Beckenville (Official reports give the town as Beccles, Suffolk)(Reports stated that the plane itself crashed near Walcott in Norfolk) except the co-pilot. Lt. Reed was unable to get out and went down with the ship.(Was my first parachute jump. When I made my jump I made a delayed one. I remember everything going down and did not have the feeling of fear as expected. Made a good landing.) I landed in an open field unhurt. Was picked up by local farmer and carried to nearest airbase. 5 hours 40 minutes flying time.Ship = Alfred II. (Biggest air battle in history of war). The Lord was with us. (Sergeant Robert Wilcox, tail gunner and asst. engineer on my crew flew as a nose gunner on this Berlin raid with another crew. He is now missing in action as of this date.)

Tuesday - May 9, 1944 :
Flew with own crew as right waist gunner. No fighters and little flak. No damage. Altitude: 18,000 ft. On oxygen for 3 hrs and 30 minutes. Ship #040. Good hit on target - Airfield at St. Trond, Belgium (target near this town). Flying time: 5 hrs and 30 min.

Wednesday - May 10, 1944 :
Aborted or recalled due to weather.

Friday - May 19, 1944:
Flew as right waist gunner with own crew. Lot of flak but we were lucky and didn't get any or very little. Lot of fighters - ME-109s. They didn't make a pass at us although they hit the element in front and behind us. I saw 3 B24s go down. Two chutes opened from the first ship and three from the second. Didn't see any chutes from the third. Many other B24s were seen going down. Target: Brunswick. Altitude: 25,000 ft. On oxygen for 5 hours. Flying time was 7 hours 15 minutes. Temperature: -31 degrees. Ship #287.

May 21, 1944 :From a letter to Frank, one of his 4 brothers "I'm getting on OK. I got 5 missions in now with 25 to go. I really had a deal not long ago. I was sent to a rest home for a week and all I did was go swimming, horseback riding, eat, sleep, etc. When I got back from the rest home there was a two day pass waiting for me so I spent that in London sightseeing. That was the first time I had had so much time off since I was home in October. You said in your letter that you wish you could be with me. Boy, you just don't know what you are wishing for."

Tuesday - May 23, 1944 :
Flew as right waist with own crew. Lot of flak but was real low. No fighters. Target was an airfield at St. Avord, France. Made a good hit on target. Flying time: 7 hrs 30 min. On oxygen 5 hrs 30 min. Altitude: 18,000. Temperature: -20. Carried 12 GP 300 lb bombs. Ship #287. Smoke came up from target to about 2,000 feet.

Wednesday - May 24, 1944 :
Flew as right waist with own crew. Lot of flak. Continuous fire and very accurate. No fighters. Escort not so good. Target: an airfield at Melun, France. Made a good hit on target. Altitude: 21,000. Temperature: -20. Flying time: 6 hrs 15 min. Flak hole in nose turret. No injuries. Bomb load: 24 GP 300 lb. Briefing at 1:15. Takeoff at 5:30. Ship #287. Got a view of Paris.

Thursday - May 25, 1944 :
Flew with own crew as right waist gunner. No flak over target but some on way back - very accurate. No fighters attacked. Good support = P-38, 47, 51. Target: railway yards at Belfort, France. Flying time: 7 hrs 30 min. Altitude: 20,000. On oxygen 6 hrs. Temperature: -20. Bomb load: 12 500 lb. GP. Good hit on target. No injuries. No damage. Briefing at 1:30. Take off at 5:30. Ship #287

Sunday - May 28, 1944 :
Right waist gunner with own crew. Briefing at 6:15. Takeoff at 10:45. Plenty of flak and accurate. No fighters. Good support. Flying time: 7 hrs 15 min. On oxygen: 5 hrs 30 min. Temperature -20. Bomb load: 52 100 lb GP. Target: oil refinery at Zeitz, Germany. Made a good hit on target. Lot of smoke. Small hole in right wing from flak. Ship #040.

Monday - May 29, 1944 :
Was right waist gunner on own crew. Briefing at 4:30. Takeoff at 8 o'clock. Lot of flak on way to target and a lot over target. Hit about 30 JU-88s and ME-109s just before and after the IP. Lucky they didn't hit our ship. Chris (left waist gunner) and Stanley (tail gunner) put in a claim for a fighter each. The fight was plenty hot. We made a good hit on target. The target was an oil refinery at Stettin, Germany. Flying time: 8 hrs 15 min. On Oxygen 5 hrs 30 min. Temperature -20. Ship #287. Bomb load 10 500lb GP. Squadron lost 4 ships. A B24 was on top of us on the bombing run and we thought his bombs were going to hit us. They miss us by a hair. Target: Politz, Germany near Stettin.

Tuesday - May 30, 1944 :
Aborted due to problems with superchargers on engines 1 and 3.

Wednesday - May 31, 1944 :
Was right waist gunner on own crew. Briefing at 4:30 AM. Takeoff at 7:45. We were about 15 or 20 min in enemy territory when the formation turns back due to weather. We saw 8 bursts of flak on way back at 7 o'clock. Ship #432. Oxygen 3 hrs. Temperature -20. Flying time: 4 hrs 15 min. Clouds were as high as 20,000 and it was a very pretty sight to see. Target was to be Brussels, Belgium.

Sunday - June 4, 1944 :
Right waist gunner on own crew. Briefing at 1:30 PM. Takeoff at 3:45. We hit flak at the coast and over target. It was very accurate. We only got 3 holes in ship. No injuries. Coming back we did low flying and it was very foggy and getting dark. Landing at 10:00 PM. Bomb load: 8 500 lb GP. Altitude: 18,000. On oxygen 6 hrs. Temperature:-19. Target: airfield at St.Avord, France. We hit this target on May 23, 1944. No fighters. Good support. We had no ball turret and flew a 9 man crew. Barken now with 578 squadron. Ship #287.

Tuesday - June 6, 1944 :
D-MISSION. Flew with own crew as right waist gunner. Briefing at 1 PM. Takeoff at 6:30. Target was crossroads near St. Lo, 14 miles inland in the invasion area. There was a heavy overcast and we didn't drop our bombs. Saw no flak and no fighters. This was the second mission on the invasion and the 100th mission for the 392nd Bomb Group. Flying time: 5 hrs 40 min. Bombs: 12 500 lb GP. Ship #287.

Thursday - June 8, 1944 :
Flew as right waist gunner with own crew. Briefing at 1:45 AM. Take off : 5:30 AM. It was raining like H--- and a heavy overcast. We climbed to 25,000 ft. to form and it was cold as everything, -30. It was an overcast up to 25,000 ft. We bombed from 17,000 carrying 52 100 lb. GP. Target was an airfield near LeMans, France which was about 100 miles in front of our troops. No flak and no fighters were seen. Flying time: 6 hrs 20 min. Ship #287. This mission did not count on my finishing up combat.

Saturday - June 10, 1944 :
Flew as right waist gunner on own crew. Briefing was at 1 AM and takeoff was suppose to be 4:30 AM. The target was changed at takeoff time and we didn't leave the ground until 10:20 AM. Altitude: 20,000 with temp at -21. Saw very little flak with no fighters. Bomb with P.F.F. Carried 24 250 lb. GP. Target was an airfield about 100 miles in front of our invasion troops.

Monday - June 12, 1944 :
Flew as right waist gunner with own crew. Briefing at 1:15 AM. Takeoff at 5:45. Target was an airfield at Dreux, France. Flak was very accurate over target and plenty of it. Altitude: 20,000. Temp. -23. Flying time: 6 hrs. We carried a bomb load of 312 20 lb fragmentation. Got a laugh from Fox (Radioman) saying "Gosh, I never saw so many bombs in my life."

Sunday - June 18, 1944 :
Flew as right waist gunner on own crew. Briefing at 1 AM. Takeoff at 5:30 AM. Flew across North Sea and very cold. We hit fighters just before we got to the coast - 109s. They were fixing to make a pass at us when some P-38 came out of nowhere, lucky for us. This was a PFF job and it seems like we went everywhere trying to find the target. We bombed the second target with 12 500 lb GP. Altitude: 20,000. Temp: -25. Lot of flak but far out except over target. Flying time: 6 hrs. Target: Bremerhaven, Germany.

Monday - June 19, 1944 :
Flew as right waist gunner with own crew. Briefing was at 4 AM although we didn't takeoff until 3:05 PM. Lot of flak over target. This was a No Ball (our first) Bomb load 52 100 lb GP. Altitude: 21,000. Temp: -21. PFF job. Target was at Mont-Louis-Fernes, France. Trying to knock out the pilotless planes. Flying time: 4 hrs 5 min.

 
Terry T.

My reccollections are close but not exactly like Jim states. Our climb speed was 150, our cruise speed was 160, indicated of course. We felt ok up to 20,000 ft. and maybe a little more. I flew one mission where our assigned altitude was 22000 feet. We had a hard time holding formation because we were so "mushy"
I don't remember any one dropping a bomb on the way to the target.
RHD

I agree with RHD regarding bombs dropped or lost before reaching the target.
I never saw any plane losing bombs. As our formation reached our usual altitude of 24- 26000 ft the planes were flying normally (my best recollection). I don't remember the indicated airspeed. I do know that we aere able to keep a tight formation.

Jules Horowitz, B-17 pilot, 99th BG, 50 missions/sorties
My tour was from 7/19/43-2/13/44

The inside demensions of the heavy bomber bomb bays were the same as they were designed to carry the same bombs. The difference is the B-24 had two bomb bays while the B-17 only had one. The stats say the B-17 could carry 6,000 lbs and the B-24 could carry 8,000 lbs, but that is spec talk. One can only fit so many bombs into a bomb bay and will always fill the space capacity before reaching the weight capacity.

Given the type of bombs are the same, the B-24 could always carry twice as many bombs as the B-17s. It took two B-17s to drop the same payload as one B-24.

Paul:

I don't believe you are correct. While the B-24 had two bomb bays with two center racks in each, the B-17 had two large center racks and two shorter side racks upon which to hang the bombs. Technically, you could hang more of the same sized bombs in the B-24 than in the B-17, but it would never get off the ground. It is the load carrying that was important, not necessarily the dimensions of the bomb bay.

There was no way the B-24 could carry twice the maximum bomb load as that of a B-17.

The two biggest factors in determining the payload on a mission were distance and altitude. The further the target the more fuel the plane had to carry the lighter the bomb load. The higher the altitude the more fuel expended to reach that altitude. So sometimes, the lighter the load.

I looked at the mission poop sheets on the web site of my father's group. The typical missions were flown by his group at 20,000 to 24,000 ft. The most common at 21,000. If they were assigned an altitude below 24,000, the average bomb load was 5,000 lbs. of 500# RDX. Sometimes 6,000 lbs. If they were flying at 24,000 ft. they carried 4,000 lbs. of 500# RDX.

William Carigan confirms this in his book, “AD LIB: Flying the B-24 Liberator in World War II,” when referring to his 50 missions flown with the 15th AF, 454th BG, 737th BS:

“The commonest bomb load for heavy work during that spring and summer season in 1944 was 500-pound RDX bombs, and the peons carried ten or twelve of them. Leaders, I learned later, frequently had a lighter load. … Occasionally we would carry 1000-pounders; sometimes 250-pounders. Other loads were less usual for us… The total load of RDX bombs usually added up to 5,000 pounds; with 2,000-pound bombs we carried 4,000 or 6,000 pounds. With incendiary or fragmentation bombs, the bomb-loaders simply filled the bomb bays. …”

(He learned leaders carried a lighter load because he later flew lead.)

This tallies with what I have read about the bomb loads carried by the B-17s.

They may have been able to stuff more incendiaries or fragmentation bombs into a B-24 than a B-17, but otherwise I believe the loads carried on common missions was indeed the same for both aircraft.

You are correct Jules. Also from the mission poop sheets:

Climb rate: 160 MPH
Cruise: 160 MPH
Return: 170 MPH


Ken

Ken Alexander
Proud son of 1st Lt. Clair B. Alexander Jr.
Pilot, B-24s: 10/12/1944 - 04/24/1945
15th AF, 49th Wing, 461st BG, 764th BS
Torretta Airfield, Cerignola, Italy

Paul,

I question the accuracy of your statement: "B-24s could carry twice as many bombs as the B-17". The B-17 had 42 bomb release stations in the bombay to accomodate various size bombs. The maximum load in the bombay was 12  500lb bombs or 6,000lbs.  Also keep in mind, the B-17 could also accomodate 2 4,000 lb bombs, one under each wing, for an 8000lb. bomb load.

Do you know how many bomb release stations were in the B-24 bombay? Also, did it have the capability of wing loaded bombs?

Bill Runnels
Bombardier(B-17)
8TH Air Force
HELL'S ANGELS
303RDBG, 360THBS
http://www.303rdbg.com/runnels-memories.html

Jim:

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.

From the mission "Poop" sheets when the 461st flew a mission at 24,000 ft. they carried a 4,000 lb. load, not the more usual 5,000 lbs.

From William Carigan's book “AD LIB: Flying the B-24 Liberator in World War II”:

Flying the B-24
“Always level off for cruising from the top, in both speed and altitude, the purpose being to let the airplane build up full momentum for cruising. If you go directly from a climb to level flight with a B-24, and reduce power, it will mush along at a high angle of attack and in a high-drag attitude while failing to achieve its best cruising speed. The heavier your load, the more important it is to level off properly.”

[B-24 Technical Orders stated:]
"41,000 lb. gross weight: 355 Maximum Indicated Airspeed
56,000 lb. maximum gross weight: 275 Maximum Indicated Airspeed
Emergency Maximum Gross Weight: 64,000 lbs."

"Quote: “ALL combat loads [we flew] exceeded 65,000-66,000 lbs.”"

(I'm afraid I don't have much on the B-17, but "Fortress in the Sky" states:
Maximum Gross Weight for the B-17G as: 48,726 lbs. It doesn't state an Emergency Max. Gross Weight.)

William Carigan again:
"In combat formations at gross weights beyond those in any table, pilots must fly at the speed of the lead. Tail-end Charlie has to jockey, so if the lead flies at 150 Charlie has to fly faster or slower. Slower? At 66,000 plus? AND avoid stalling? The controls are already soft under these conditions. …

“The B-24… has been widely maligned, usually by people who don’t know the airplane. … Both [the B-24 and the B-17] were superb airplanes. I flew both of them and know both of them. I like both of them; but, perhaps because I flew the B-24 in combat, I have fonder memories of the B-24. I liked the B-17 because it allowed pilots to live even when their attention strayed or their flying was sloppy. The B-24 was a less forgiving airplane, and fewer forgiven pilots survive it. I like to think I survived the B-24 because I was a better pilot. Vanity, vanity. But I did learn the old girl’s tricks, which any pilot could do, and I had luck, which some did not. Also I had a good memory, and that made some difference.”

“...Always, on the way to the target the heavy airplane felt heavy in my hands. Once clear of the flak and on course for home, the big bird felt exceedingly light to my touch. The airplane, now without bombs and some 1500 gallons of fuel, actually weighed about 15,000 pounds less, and it was downhill all the way home.”

William Everett Carigan, Jr. flew lead for part of his tour. After completing 50 missions, he returned to the US and was assigned to Four-Engine Central Instructor’s School at Smyrna Army Air Field, Tennessee. He became a B-24 instructor pilot, then a B-17 instructor pilot. Later he flew B-29s.

He flew 15th AF, 454th BG, 737th BS.

Quote: “Having never flown a B-17 before, I found the transition phase interesting, mainly because it cleared up hangar reports and propaganda about the planes.”

Ken

Ken Alexander
Proud son of 1st Lt. Clair B. Alexander Jr.
Pilot, B-24s: 10/12/1944 - 04/24/1945
15th AF, 49th Wing, 461st BG, 764th BS
Torretta Airfield, Cerignola, Italy

RHD...My recollection of the airspeed for the B-17 when I was flying, was 155 MPH in cllimb, and 160 over the target..(I Think) and 160 back....the problem I have is, both of  my pilots have gone west, and all I have is my memory...and it is getting worse each year.
 
In listening to the Memphis Bell movie (the original) the RPM picked up noticably after bombs away...I recall the engine sound did also, on my missions....probably due to bomb load suddenly lightening the aircraft.
 
Jim :-)

James S. Peters Sr. T/Sgt B-17 Flt Engr, 27 missions 99 BG, 348BS, 5th Wing, 15th AAF Tortorella, (Foggia#2), Italy My Tour was from 12/03/44-06/19/45 M/Sgt USAF (Retired)

Ken...I agree with you...I think Newby was relating a single occcurence.....and I may have caused a wrong impression in my relating his story....I have gotten into an argument or two,on the load capacity of the B-17...I made a statement to a pilot who was not in WW II, and he challenged me when I stated that I had been told while in Italy, that we had taken off on missions with over 70,000 lbs....he got out his slide rule and calculated that the maximum gross wt was no more than 68,500 lbs....he calculated the weight of the armor, to the last detail.....and he practically called me a liar....when a pilot from my bomb group showed up, and made an equally wild statement, at least to him...he immediatly shut up...he was talking to a pilot,where I was only a flight engineer and enlisted at that.  Talk about an ego....

When I attended the 50th anniversary of the B-17 at Seattle, many bomb groups held their reunions at the same time, (mine was one) and I asked one of the crewmen who had flown in N.Africa, how many extra boxes of ammo were carried on those early missions where fighters were encountered....he told me "Oh,10 or 15..whatever we felt was necessary"....what that pilot had failed to take into consdieration was that each wooden box of .50 weighed at least 200 lbs....10 boxes = 2000 lbs , which then put the gross wt over the 70,000 lbs...not taking into account the extra weight of the Italian mud...I have a photo of one of the 99th BG formations that there is enough mud on the fuselage, to obscure  the National Insignia and the group and squadron insignia.

In fact, this was the reason for washng the aircraft with gasoline....the drinking water had to be hauled 6 miles, and with a total of 60 B-17s there was no way to haul water to wash airplanes..and I am sure the same situation was also present on all the bases in Italy...B-24s included.

An estimate of how much the mud weighed was some where around 1000 lbs...when that is factored in to the range and carrying capacity, it means a lot.

Ken Rust in his 15th AIr Force Story has a photo of a B-24 taxiing thrugh a mud puddle.

Jim :-)

James S. Peters Sr. T/Sgt B-17 Flt Engr, 27 missions 99 BG, 348BS, 5th Wing, 15th AAF Tortorella, (Foggia#2), Italy My Tour was from 12/03/44-06/19/45 M/Sgt USAF (Retired)

Terry,
 
Thanks for the site location and the information. I went back and checked my brother's mission logs and found that they flew one mission at 25, 000, two at 24,000, four at 23,000, one at 22,500 and one at 21,000. The remainder were flown from 12,000 to 20,000 with a couple with no altitude noted. Most of these lower altitudes were fairly short ones into France. Evidently altitude was not a great factor in these missions. The bomb load was routinely 12 500lb, once 8 500lb and 16 100lb and another time 192 20lb frags. More often than not, the bombs were demolition type but other types mixed in also. There was never any mention of having to drop any bombs early to gain the higher altitudes. He regretted having to kick out 12 500lb bombs over the channel once because one of the bomb bay doors wouldn't open.
 
 From the various responses, I feel vindicated in my contention that the dropping of bombs early was an isolated incident and was not the normal procedure. B-24s may have had some faults compared to B-17s and the higher, faster, further stuff may have been something that stuck in the B-17 crews craw but the war was won because ALL those guys flew what was given them and didn't back down from defending their planes or which AF they were attached to. It was obvious that the 8th AF would get the press because they were flying out of England. Italy wasn't looking for someone to come and take away the German oppression but the English were and were more than happy to give the glory to the Mighty Eighth. Nothing could be further from the truth than that the war was won by one group or another and press releases were the same then as they are today. Check the media today and see how biased things are!!!!!
 
Vic

Vic Walzel, brother of 1st Lt Leland H. Walzel, bombardier with the 93rd Bomb Group, 330th Squadron. KIA 6 March 1944 on his 25th mission.
www.lelandwalzel.150m.com

Vic...Well said and concise.
 
I think your statement applies to the Ground Forcse as well as the Aircrews....no one wanted to let thier buddies down.
 
Jim :-)

James S. Peters Sr. T/Sgt B-17 Flt Engr, 27 missions 99 BG, 348BS, 5th Wing, 15th AAF Tortorella, (Foggia#2), Italy My Tour was from 12/03/44-06/19/45 M/Sgt USAF (Retired)

First of all I never said the B-24 did carry twice the load, I said it could carry twice the load. I got that off the History Channel. I didn't think about the shackle arrangements. I will withdraw that statement for now and will discuss it with experts I know. Anyway, all I was trying to say is the reality is different than what the specs claim.

The bottom line is all bombers carried whatever payloads their mission orders told them to carry.

I would imagine that the mission planners took everything in consideration. Of course one of the things was the bombs had to be available. Mission planners would have to know the logistics (how many bombs are on hand, the rate they are coming in, how many are projected to come in, etc) when making decisions on how best to use them. Like everything else bombs had to be budgeted too. One way to stretch the bomb supply is to reduce the daily payloads a little.

During June 1944 many groups (both B-17s and B-24s) were running 2 or 3 missions a day. I don't know of any group running out of bombs but do know their bomb dumps on base were low and logistics (bombs, bullets and fuel) was a big concern. Convoys were trucking bombs into the bases around the clock and still the groups would have to send their own trucks to the depot to get more.

Mission planners were always concerned with the overall weight of a plane versus distance to target. One way to increase the range would be to lighten the payload. Fuel itself is weight, on shorter missions 2nd AD planes did not take off with full tanks. On every mission, the mission planners would calculate; using many factors like distance, speed, elevation, weather, wind, payload, etc; and determine how much gas was needed, then give the planes slightly more than enough gas to do the job. And yes, some planes encountering unexpected problems did run out or come in bone dry.

The payloads in the 2nd AD varied mission to mission and I can't say there was any standard size load. Also it is hard to find a mission when all the planes within a group carried the same payload, at least with planes amd missions I studied. For example two squadrons might have GPs while the third one carried incendiary bombs. Sometimes payloads were found to be different within the same squadron. Sometimes a plane would carry one type of bomb in its front bomb bay and another type in the other one. These varying loads aren't by accident or some fluke as these payloads are specified on each mission order.

I'm sure there were some mission planners who thought the B-24 was a bad design and had no place in the ETO. It's no secret Doolittle thought the B-17 was better. On the other hand, I'm sure there were those who thought the same thing about B-17s. Col Lossee commanded a B-24 squadron before taking over a B-17 group. He had flown both types in combat and liked the B-17 but said he always thought the B-24 was the better plane. I seriously doubt if personal opinions affected the way mission planners planned the missions or how flyboys carried them out. Their job was to defeat the enemy with what they had. And that they did.

As far as who could fly higher, I think everyone agrees the B-17 could. The 8th AF usually had them fly higher (roughly 24K to 28K) and put their B-24s lower between 20K and 24K. I believe they did this because its where those planes performed better. As far as traveling distance, I can't see any difference as both of these planes went to targets deep into enemy territory. I also think the B-17 crashed better. That's no joke, I think if someone had to crashland their plane on land or sea their chances of survival were better in a B-17.

I don't think any one type of heavy bomber was better than the other and I am a fan of both. Each had their strengths and weaknesses when compared to the other. I think it's a matter of preference depending on what features an individual thinks is more important... to him. And that's what the war was all about, preserving the right to have an individual opinion.

Al Blue, perhaps the world's leading authority on B-24s still living, told me once if you take the number of B-24s manufactured and divided it by the number of factory design changes the answer is 6. Think about that. It's hard to find two identically built B-24s or assume all B-24s were the same. The crews that flew the B-24H built by Ford at Willow Springs fell in love with it as it was almost like flying a different type plane altogether. Their ground crews loved them too. They say Ford really did have a better idea.

Diversions

I don't know of any mission when bombers (of any size or type) were sent out empty as a diversion. Until I see actual proof of such, I won't believe it either. There is just no logic to it. However, the 8th AF did have some top secret B-24 provisional or specialty outfits that did not carry bombs but did other things vitally important. One example is the 36th RCM (a squadron), instead of bombs they had radar jamming equipment. They not only flew way out in front (part way) on missions but they flew when there were no missions just to create chaos by jamming the German radar to make them think a mission was on its way. Lord only knows how many lives and planes these guys saved. There were also radio jamming planes that could jam German communcations on the ground including tank-to-tank radios. These guys proved extremely valuable during the Battle of the Bulge. Since these and the other specialty aircrafts were top secret, I can see where someone might conclude these empty B-24s were out there as a diversion.

For Vic,

I do know of some personal accounts when a B-24 crew found themselves having trouble keeping up with the group so they would kick out a bomb or two to lighten their load. These stories aren't about crippled planes, but planes that just weren't performing like it should. In one story they were only able to keep up after they kicked out a couple of thousand pounders on way to target but after the whole group dropped at target, they couldn't keep up because everyone else was empty. They flew home alone. Their crew chief never did find the problem and the plane behaved fine on later missions.

Another story for Vic, one crew salvoed their bombs shortly after entering Germany because one of the engines began malfunctioning and they were straggling behind but they did not want to fly back alone so they stayed with the group all the way to target. Shortly after target a little friend found them and escorted them home.

In both of the above stories, I said they salvoed but in truth they attempted to hit targets of opportunity. The first one tried to take out a couple of flak batteries mounted on barges off the Danish coast. They missed. The other took out an autobahn bridge over a railroad track. By pure chance, the bombs happened to hit the bridge at the same time a freight train was passing underneath. The crew didn't see that train coming until after the bombs were released. The next day P-51s were sent out to verify the damage claimed by the crew and found another freight train parked behind the damaged one. The P-51s destroyed both of them.

Perhaps these stories might shed some light on why a plane would salvo its bombs early but elect to stay with their group to target. It was scarier to fly back alone than go to target and for good reason, the Luftwaffe looked for stragglers.

Paul Arnett
web historian and curator
www.492ndbombgroup.com

It's hard to find two identically built B-24s or assume all B-24s were the same. The crews that flew the B-24H built by Ford at Willow Springs fell in love with it as it was almost like flying a different type plane altogether.

Paul:

So true. During the Collings visit to the MAPS Museum I talked to two pilots, each of whom flew B-24s out of Italy, one thought that the Ford planes were much better than the Libs produced by other manufacturers. The other pilot said the Ford planes were junk he thought the better planes were from Consolidated's plant. My father says that each plane had its own characteristics and he doesn't recall one manufacturer's plane being better or worse. Indeed, he said you could fly two B-24s, the same model and from the same manufacturer, and they would each have unique flight traits. Dad flew H, J, L & M model B-24s while in Italy. Only once or twice did he fly a particular airplane more than one time.

I believe you are also right about the crash worthiness of the B-17 vs. the B-24. The Fortress seemed to maintain its structural integrity better than the Liberator in a crash. The Lib had an unfortunate tendency to break its back in some types of landings due to the large bomb bays. The nose would also wind up folding back and into the cockpit in some situations.

Pilots were instructed to avoid ditching a B-24. The bomb bay doors would collapse and then the bay would act as a giant scoop forcing water into the waist section of the bomber unless the ditching was done absolutely perfectly by setting down on the crest of a wave, matching speed and direction.

Ken

Ken Alexander
Proud son of 1st Lt. Clair B. Alexander Jr.
Pilot, B-24s: 10/12/1944 - 04/24/1945
15th AF, 49th Wing, 461st BG, 764th BS
Torretta Airfield, Cerignola, Italy

Paul,
 
Thanks for the input. I totally agree that there had to circumstances such as those mentioned that would make it more desirable to lighten the load and stay with the group and it probably happened many times but to individual planes and not the whole group. Coming home had to be a big priority and whatever it took to do it would certainly be a major consideration. A plane alone was really something the Luftwaffe enjoyed seeing and they had great success when locating one.
 
Vic

Vic Walzel, brother of 1st Lt Leland H. Walzel, bombardier with the 93rd Bomb Group, 330th Squadron. KIA 6 March 1944 on his 25th mission.
www.lelandwalzel.150m.com