B-24 versus B-17

Jules,           Thanks again for the post!  Yes, the Lib proved to be invaluable in the Pacific Theatre, and continued to prove its worth even after the advent of the B-29 Superfortress.  When I view the nose art paintings of the Libs in the Pacific ("Million $ Baby" 403 B.S., 43 BG, Le Shima Island, 1945 and others),  I am reminded of how good an A/C she really was.  BUT, I shall continue to wear my B-17 "Yankee Lady" A-2 jacket with pride!  I have attached a repeat photo from another Thread in which our FO WR Lib meets its "Heir Apparent" on its "own turf."     Best Regards!     Steven

[image]local://upfiles/11777/BC39CC1EE6A244238AE6FA0E5235F43A.jpg[/image]

Attached Image(s)

I came across another one of those B-24 vs. B-17 references just the other day in the current copy of AVIATION History, January 2008, in  the article entitiled "A Bad Day For Flying" by Alan Foster, pp. 33-39.  Alan's father, the late  Major John T. Foster, was a member of the 308BG, 425 BS, 14th AAF, who flew the B24D-110-CO, 42-40879, on the fateful 24AU43 mission to Hankow.  In writing about his father's cadet training days in B-17's, he went on to write (p-34):  "Their instructors told them how lucky they were to be in B-17's, not the homely, slab-sided B-24's - <the box the B-24 came in.>  But his graduation was followed by orders to Tuscon and crew training in the B-24."  He was ultimately assigned a crew and took the "Belle Starr" to the CBI Theatre of Operations.  I thought that again it was interesting to see the comparison pop up.    Best Regards!  Steven

I got into a reading mode yesterday and today since getting a copy of Into The Fire by Duane Schultz (Westholme, October 2007) about the 01AU43 low level Ploesti Raid.  In chapter 3 on pp. 43-54, there are some "different" aspects of the perception of the B-17 vs. the B-24.  If you happen to be in a bookstore, pick up a copy and peruse the chapter. The book is also available on amazon.com for $14 to $26.  Best Regards!  Steven

Every now and again one comes across in research or just reading an article or passage in a book that you reflect upon or tie into something you've written or read on this Site.  I recently came across this passage in the book: Into The Fire by Schultz (Westholme, 2007) in which he is describing the trials and tribulations of the crews returning from the 01AU43 low level Ploesti Raid.  The passage is a testimonial to the B-24D airframe which kept the crew of Little Lady (41-23754) alive as it crashed at the end of the runway at a small airstrip in neutral Turkey.  Edwin Baker, CP, recalls how Little Lady had brought them through the hell of Ploesti and kept them alive.  He sat transfixed on the mound of dirt and debris at the end of the runway staring at the A/C that had kept them alive through the low level raid, flak, fighters, loss of an engine and the roughest landing he had ever made.  Later, he wrote:  "As the dust settled, I could see the holes in her.  It was unbelievable! She looked like a sieve, yet not a man on board was even scratched.  The landing gear cracked and slowly lowered the belly of the ship to the ground as the left wing buckled at the fuselage, and sagged until its wing tip dug into the soft earth.  Little Lady was dying and never would fly again.  I almost expected her to make the final flutter of her wings.  I started to choke up and shake inside not knowing whether it was finally realizing I was still alive, or that I was seeing an airplane that we had cared for and babied through all these months slowly die."  This Lib had brough her crew safely through this inferno and crash landing.  Later, a Lib would take them home.  Best Regards!      Steven

To keep like items together, this post attached grew out of a PM again concerning the B-24 bomb bay cat-walk, the aluminum roller doors and the comparison to the B-17.  The comparisons will continue as long as there are those passing on the history and memories.  Best Regards!  Steven

Bill,   Thanks for the reply!  I remember quite an excellent discussion with photographs, diagrams and sketches on the Thread: B-24, Bomb Bay Roller Doors, in which differences were pointed out between the Fort and Lib.  It was quite apparent that the structure and tensile strength was stronger on the Fort.  Best Regards!  Steven

_____________________________

 

 
 

At Christmas I happened to pick up a back issue of Flight Journal magazine(Fall 2005) dedicated to the B-24 Liberator.  What I found fascinating was the article entitled "Dogfighting and Ditching in the B-24," pages 56 thru 62, by Frederick A. Johnsen.  Along with the idealized sketch (p.62) of a B-24, there are some good "first hand" accounts of ditching, ditching drills, and comparisons between the B-17 and the B-24.  It is dramatic to see the difference in the sketch from the B-24 Pilot's Manual and a photograph of a B24D which had been "reinforced" and instrumented for a ditching while under observation.  It exibited the characteristic "broken back" at he center-wing assembly.  The study was used to make modifications and improvements within subsequent engineering blocks.  As an aside, there are some great photo ops throughout the magazine of the Collings Foundation B-24J decked out in its three most prominent motifs, All American, The Dragon and his Tail and Witchcraft. 
I've included this brief post from another thread as a reference point to more comparisons between the Lib and the Fort as found in the aforementioned article.   Best Regards!  Steven

I like to seek out those veterans who logged time in both types and get their opinion. Predictably, like Ford and Chevy owners, there’s little middle ground. I was surprised to hear many pilots say they liked the 24 best even though it was more difficult to fly well. Some cited the speed and range, some the challenge and one said he just liked the "ride" better because the B-24’s wings flexed more in rough air.
 
Aircrew other then the pilots I have spoken with seem to be heavily on the B-17 side of the house. Most seemed to feel the survival odds were in their favor when it came to battle damage, ditching or belly landing. One also added that aircrews generally didn’t get to pick which pilot they flew with. If you got a good pilot the aircraft type wasn’t much of an issue. However if you got stuck with a mediocre pilot he said he would much rather be in a 17 since an average pilot could get you home in one.

I maintain that in either plane 17 or 24, in combat luck is the most important factor, skill comes into play when emergency procedures are called for. Both planes pilots were just truck drivers, sometimes going through hell to do their job.

Lance,   I prefer Chevy trucks, but, then again, I favor the FO WR Liberator!  Jules, as usual, made a good point in post 168 in describing both A/C's as trucks (platforms) carrying payloads.  In this Thread as well as in others, there is a world of different opinions.  When you read through the comments from VETS or the logs from their children and grand-children ("Ken a B24 Fan" is a good example), you will see that the best A/C is the "one that brings you home!"   Best Regards!  Steven

Steven...I would like to express an opinion that I have had for years.....and it goes along with Jules's observation that the pilots were truck drivers......
 
Any bomber crew is dependent on ALL the other crewmembers in order to complete a mission...the pilots fly the aircraft...the navigator sets the course, the bombardier drops the bombs, the flight engineer assists the pilots in the operation of the aircraft and systems, , the radio operator does the communicating..and the gunners attempt to make sure any attacking enemy fighters do not interrupt the mission.
 
This opinion was solidified in my tenure in the Strategic Air Command, when for a period of time, I was involved in maintenance on the B-52....where the B-52 was considered a bomb SYSTEM, in that until the aircraft itself was ready to go, that any other system involved...bomb/nav, communications, missile launching (when the GAM..Guided Air Missile), meant nothing unless the aircraft itself was flyable.
 
I had an occasion on the B-52 when the Munition Maintenance would delay the maintenance on the aircraft if the B-52 maintainer allowed the MM people to conduct training on the aircraft once the GAMS were installled...they would ask for an extension several times and eat up the aircraft maintenance time,
 if allowed to do so.
 
One midnight, I asked the GAM loading chief, if he could have the missiles loaded by 0600...he answered he could... (and did)...about 0800, the Munitions Maintenance Officer in charge approached me and rubbing his hands together, asked when he could  get access to the aircraft, for training...( he saw that the GAMS were loaded)...he became upset when I answered him...1800 hours, when the crew chief took over...he demanded WHY? and WHO ?... gave me the authority to decide that...I told him I was tired of his people requesting more training time, with the missiles installed...At this point , I will explain that the GAMS were fueled with ammonia, and NO ONE ELSE COULD DO ANY WORK WHILE THIS TRAINING WAS IN PROGRESS, so in effect, any aircraft maintenance was halted.
 
I told him to see  Production Control , and that I had been informed when I was assigned that it was up to me to schedule all work...the only restriction,was that I was not to miss a scheduled takeoff.
This meant that the aircraft had to be ready to go....otherwise all of the other systems that made up the bomber, would be useless,if the aircraft was not in commission to fly.
 
This touches also on the awarding of medals to only the pilots, as they were , as Jules said truck drivers.
 Their skill and training brought home a lot of aircraft that were damaged, but my point is that it took ALL of the aircrew doing thier jobs to complete the mission.
 
Try flying a bombing mission with ONLY the pilots and who will drop the bombs ? Who will make certain the bomber is on the correct course to the target ? Who will protect the bomber from the fighter attacks ?
 
I apologize if some pilots are offended, but, to look at this any other way, is to ignore the obvious...it matters little what rank an aircrewman has, or had, only that he was trained properly and did his job...many aircrewmen with the rank of private did their jobs and there WERE enlisted pilots.
 
Jim :-)

"Both planes pilots were just truck drivers, sometimes going through hell to do their job."

Jim,   Good morning and well spoken!  The way I  interpreted Jules quote was that the pilot not only drove the "truck," but was also responsible for the assembled team.  There is no doubt that  each crew member played an important role on each A/C.  In my mind, I especially feel that the ground crew, most especially maintenance, played the most valuable role.  I've posted often on this topic.  You are correct in sighting the crew members!  In combat conditions, everyone is in it together! Best Regards!  Steven

Jim,
On my above post I had no intention of excluding the rest of the crew. Of course no mission could be completed successfully without the whole crew doing the job that they were trained for. My comment was only from the pilots viewpoint.

Jules..I know that....I am sorry if I stepped on any toes....I agree with Steven as well...the importance of the
 maintenance troops has  been ignored for a long time....I speak with some authority...I both flew and worked on the aircraft....I think my flying experience made me more concious than others of the importance of doing the job right...you cannot park an aircraft on a cloud and work on it..it has to be right before it flys.
 
Jim :-)

Jules, Jim,
I have the utmost respect for the both of you and the jobs you performed in WWII and as you both implied it took the whole crew to make the mission successful. My wifes brother, upon recieving his wings was given the option of bombers or fighters. He chose fighters for one reason only, he did not want the responsibility for anyone, but himself. My seafaring uneducated guess is that when a crewmember was lost or wounded, the pilot, suffered a little more and sometimes may have questioned himself was he a little at fault.
This bomber question keeps coming back like a bad penny. I believe it was Jules, a few years back that said, "The plane that brings you back is the best". And like the penny I say again  to you both and your flying comrades, 'Thanks for a job well done".  

Just thought I'd add a post here that I responded to on another Thread (attached) that might bring another perspective into the ongoing discussion.  Best Regards!  Steven
 

Lance,   Do you have any written comments, notes, memoires, etc. from your dad that might be interesting to the Site Members and/or "Net Surfers" about the different aspects between the Lib and the Fort?  I am re-posting this over on the Thread:  B-24 versus B-17 (Link attached), and you might want to post there if you have anything appropriate.  Yes, "the battle goes on" between the two and, as Jim, jpeters140, once asked me: "Are you trying to start WWIII?"  I must say that it has been a very interesting and informativ Thread!  By the way, I'm a Chevy Guy!   Best Regards!  Steven

The discussion of the relative virtues of the Fortress and the Liberator will continue as long as the memory of the brave men that flew them. And it is true that the good airplane was the one who brought you home.
 
From a strategic standpoint I should think that range is the essential factor in determining the most desireable aircraft. The pattern of MacArthur's island hopping campaign was determined by his "bomber line" the range of the bombers to be based at the next island. In Europe the Liberator's range brought the enemy and his resources under fire and thereby influenced other aspects of the campaign, i.e., fighter and AAA deployment, and reconstruction resources. The boxer with the longer reach has an advantage and his opponent has to adjust. The old adage of "if the enemy is in range, so are you" does not apply to strategic bombing (unless you are in the bomber).

David,
The reason that the B 24s were used in the Pacifc was because of their longer range then the B17, however
in Europe the range was not quite that important, because strategic targets were all over the continent so either plane could be used.
I flew 1 mission where we were wheels up for 13+ hours, 1900 miles, from Tunis to Weiner Neustadt.

David...I would ask you to answer one question....Why was the B-17 selected to make the long mission to Berlin from the bases in Italy over the B-24-...supposedly the B-24 had the greater range ?

I would guess that one reason was the altitude capability of the B-17....capable of attaining 35,600 ft for a service ceiling against the B-24s becoming almost unmanageable at 24,000 ft. (I was told by an 8th AF B-17 pilot, that he had bombed at 35,000 ft).

In fact in the MTO, the B-24s carried the SAME bomb load, as the B-17.

The Pacific theater was different, but ,don't sell the B-17 short in the Pacific as the main force in the Pacific at the start of the war was the B-17.....extra fuel tanks were fabricated in Australia for installation in the radio room and nose of the B-17s.

Jim :-)

From a strategic standpoint I should think that range is the essential factor in determining the most desireable aircraft.
 
David,   Good evening!  From time to time, I revisit this Thread of mine and add to it only because there is always "a different twist" that someone will find or a new slant on this age-old debate.  There are several factors that are debated here, but the most recent seems to center on "altitude/ceiling and range." Jules and Jim, as usual, in their Posts point out the relativity of these when discussing the mission assignments in both the ETO and the Pacific. Keeping in mind my historical preference for the B-24 and most especially the FO WR Lib, I can still step back and see the reason why each A/C had desired characteristics.  Think about it... timing also had a lot to do early on due to roduction capacity and availability of A/C's.  One only has to think about the 01AU43 Ploesti Low Level Raid when the B-24D Lib was the platform of choice, albeit modifications, due to range and payload.  As the WWII progressed, it became apparent that even a different platform was mandated which would incorporte the best of both, but most especially range, ceiling and payload (again, not presuming this to be the best A/C.)  Voila, the advent of the B-29 Superfort! I've included a pic taken at FO WR, and used earlier, which depicts the "new kid on the street" dropping in at the Plant.  As, many Vets have said, "The best A/C is the one that brings you home!"  Best Regards!  Steven


[image]local://11777/1CE5D1855728428884F8706067595CA7.jpg[/image]

Attached Image(s)

Mr, Horowitz,
 
On the mission Tunis to Weiner Neustadt "13+ hours, 1900 miles"...
 
WOW, never knew you guys had to endure such a mission!  Several things come to my mind and I hope you don't feel me prying in areas that I should not go...  1) Did you guys bring any chow?  2) Do you remember if you had to 'lighten' your bomb load for this mission?  If so, by how much, if you can remember.  3) Were you able to get any sleep or cat-naps along the way?
 
A group of us, here in St.Louis Mo, are trying our best to simulate bombing runs during the early part of WWII in the Pacific during the Coral Sea Campaign.  We have heard about the 'bomb bay' tanks of the B17s and some info on 'reduced' loads when going to distant targets, but have no references for such.  Example, if the mission was for 500 miles - full load ~6k lbs of bombs, 750 miles - 4k load, 1000 miles - 2k load, etc.  This is why I am asking the questions...also to just better appreciate all that our fliers accomplished in those days.
 
From your experience, was it possible or probable that you flew a mission EVERY day if the weather was good?  Sure seems like a lot of wear and tear on that young body and mind.
 
Thanks in advance for reading this...anything you reply with would be appreciated.
 
Rich
636-332-8933