Gentlemen,    After having read magazines and books, researched sparingly on line, compared the data and watched documentaries, I still have a burning question that I would like to put out there to those who actually flew in either A/C or in both.  I already know that everyone one has an opinion as they read the facts, but to hear insights from those veterans who were there would be most interesting.  So, how do they stack up "nose to nose" in your view?  What makes it personally intriguing to me is to have had the honor to work in the Willow Run Plant surrounded by the history and memories of the B-24 and  then to be a "Lifer" in the Yankee Air Force which has one of the most meticulously restored B-17G's, the Yankee Lady.  Tough choice I know!  I also know that that the BEST A/C is the one that "carries out its mission by most efficiently delivering its payload on target and safely brings its crew home."  I'll be waiting to hear!  "They are not forgotten!"   Steven

Steven Puhl
Willow Run Historian
Willow Run: Home of 8685 Ford Built B-24 Liberators
Life Member: YANKEE AIR MUSEUM (YAM) "Where History Flies"
"They are not forgotten!"

Steven..I will again catch H*** for taking my stand.  
 
 First a little history...the B-17 was developed by Boeing in the years 1934-1935.
The B-24 was developed in 1939. some four years later...the B-24 had a higher cruising speed due to it's DAVIS wing, and a sore point with me, is the claim of the B-24 people that the B-24 was designed to fly faster, higher and further than the B-17.
 
It is true the B-17 only carried 1700 gal fuel in it's main tanks, so when the B-24 was designed, it had a much larger fuel capacity...However, when the B-17 was modified with the so-called tokio tanks, the range was almost that of the B-24...a little less to be sure, but not really that much.
 
HOWEVER, there were some things that set the two aircraft apart...one was that the B-17 had a fuel indicating system whereby there was a remote float and potentiometer, that went to a single cockpit indicator with 6 positons, wherby each main tank fuel indication could be read in the cockpit. (this is the same system used in an automobile).
 
The B-24 on the other hand, was designed with TWO parallel glass tubes similar to a common coffe maker with level of the liquid indicated by the level in the glass tube.....If the glass was broken, the fuel quantity was then unable to be determined.
 
Secondly, the B-17 was almost totally electric..the only things that were hydraulic was the cowl flaps and brakes, and the hydraulic turosupercharger control system, which required an engine driven hydraulic pump on the two inboard engines. The latest B-17G had an electronically controlled turbospercharger system, as did the later B-24s.
 
The B-24 was hydraulic with ONLY one engine driven hydraulic pump on the No 3 engine...in the event the No 3 engine was shutdown, there was no hydraulic pump to operate the brakes....to solve this, an electric motor driven pump was installed in the bomb bay...where due to a quirk in the fuel system  on the early B-24s, mostly leaked and therefore the bomb bay doors had to cracked open on takeoff and landing....the electric motor sparked when operated, and if fuel fumes were present, caused an explosion.
 
Why there was only ONE engine driven hydraulic pump escapes me.
 
As to the flying higher...this is false...the service ceiling for the B-24, at least the early models was 28,000 ft...the B-17 with its slower wing, could reach 35,600 ft with a full bomb load..true, at that altitude, the B-17 was mushy on the controls...the same thing happened with the B-24 only at 28,000 ft.  So this meant that the ceiling on the B-17 was some 7,600 ft higher.  And from Italy, I have watched our B-17 formation actually PASS the B-24 formation. This was due to the denser air at 20,000 ft while the B-17 was at 27-29,000 ft, where the air was that much thinner, that the B-17  TRUE airspeed, although indicating some 10 MPH slower was actually some 20 MPH faster, allowing the B-17 to pass the B-24 formation.
 
In the Pacific theater, with the B-24s two bomb bays, a set of bomb bay fuel tanks could be carried and still carry a bomb load. 
 
In the Mediterreanean, however, the bomb load of the B-17 and B-24 were identical, and the B-24 had a struggle getting to 28,000 ft...most B-24 bombing altitudes were close to 24,000 ft.
 
Another item is touted by the B-24 people is the total number of the B-24 compared to the B-17...will someone expaln how there were only THREE factories assembling the B-17 with FIVE factories asemblling the B-24, can be actually compared ?
 
The total B-17 production figure is given as 12,731, with the total B-24 production figure as somewhere around 20,000, if the Navy PB4Y1 and PB4Y-2 are added.  
 
Now having said all of this. the actual combat losses of the B-17 and B-24 were very close to each other...so, in that sense, to say one was better, is almost like comparing apples to oranges.
 
To sum it up...whatever, brought you back was a good aircraft, whether it was B-17s, B-24s, B-29s ,or any of the medium bombers.  
 
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)

Can you clarify for me.  I thought their missions were different, especially in the Pacific.  From what I have read, the B-24 had a dual roll with high altitude bombing, but also low level strafing and lowlevel bombing, especially for ships and subs.  Some of he reading material indicated that many crews preferred the 200 foot bomb runs because the Jap flac could not get at them as accurately.
 
As mentioned, the bomb bay fuel tanks gave the B-24 a long range in the Pacific and still allowed for some high powered bombs or torpedo's.
 
Hope those more knowledgeable on the subject can give some other opinions and details.
 
Wes in Ohio
 

Wes....The B-17 was all that was available in the Pacific at the start of WW II. Tbe B-24 had yet to come into production in 1941.

In order to extend the B-17 range, B-17F's were modified by adding an additional fuel tank in the radio room with another in the nose....I have the list of B-17fs that were modified with these extra tanks. The tanks were mfg in Australia.

All I have related is what I have read...I flew in the Mediterreanean.

The mission in the Pacific was (as I understand it) different, in that the B-24 was utilized for long range missions, where the endurance was required, and thereby more suited to single operations....also keep in mind that the Pacific is HUGE, and the flying and fighting was advanced through advancement of the Allied forces obtaining the necessary airbases. In comparison, the ETO/MTO was much more concentrated, and above all was over land. The Pacific was noteworthy in that many aircraft just disappeared, and many are waiting to be located. I am not sure a valid comparison can be made between the ETO/MTO and the units in the Pacific. The Navy and Marines had to land and capture the airbases for the aircraft of the USAAF to operate.

My purpose was to compare the two aircraft. as requested in the original posting of this thread. Again, to compare the two aircraft, one has to consider the use and the theater. I understand that had the war in the ETO lasted longer, the entire 8th AF would have been equipped with the B-17 as it's only aircraft.
Several 8th B-24 BGs were converted to the B-17.

Undoubtably, the B-17 could take more punishment... the B-24 suffered in that the fuselage was in an oblong shape, where the B-17 had a circular fuselage. The B-17 could be ditched successfully and would float, where the B-24 would most likely break in three sections on ditching.

I don't know that I can fully answer your question...my very limited experience with the B-24 was the trip home..some 45 hours from Italy to the US.

I hope some of the Pacific B-24 veterans can do a better job of the telling of the Pacific war, from first hand experience. 

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,     Thank you very much for the detailed response!  I found a  few things that I  had not gleaned from articles.  But best of all I was glad to hear voiced what I hear so often, and that is "the best was the one that brought you home!"  Thanks!     Steven

Steven Puhl
Willow Run Historian
Willow Run: Home of 8685 Ford Built B-24 Liberators
Life Member: YANKEE AIR MUSEUM (YAM) "Where History Flies"
"They are not forgotten!"

ORIGINAL: jpeters140

Undoubtably, the B-17 could take more punishment... the B-24 suffered in that the fuselage was in an oblong shape, where the B-17 had a circular fuselage. The B-17 could be ditched successfully and would float, where the B-24 would most likely break in three sections on ditching.

 
Although the B-24 did have severe issues with ditching, the wide-spread belief that the B-17 was more rugged cannot be factually supported.
 
The B-24 loss rate in the ETO was actually slightly better than that of the B-17.  The B-24 flew 226,775 sorties with 3,626 losses or 1.60% while the B-17 flew 291,508 sorties with 4,688 losses or 1.61%.
 
The reason the B-17s flew missions at higher altitude was to put more distance between the formations and the flak guns - thus decreasing the accuracy of the flak.  With the B-24s flying several thousand feet lower, they were theoretically taking more flak hits, but had a slightly better loss rate.  I've never been able to figure out how that translates into the B-17 being "more rugged".

Mark, I will try to put my statement in the proper perspective....the B-17 had a circular fuselage design, and that is a superior design for ruggedness,in comparison to an oblong design...an example would be the diving submarine devices used to probe the deepest ocean...the design is that of a ball, where the pressure is the same on all surfaces. (in other words, circular)

In order to  further illustrate my point....the next time the Collings Foundation brings their  B-17 and B-24 to town...look closely at the rivet pattern of the two aircraft...the B-17 fuselage rivet pattern is closely spaced while the B-24 has large rivet patterns.  This translates into many more rivets being used in the B-17,
than the B-24,which could account for the larger number of B-24s being produced....fewer rivets mean faster production...(of course, this will not be mentioned by the B-24 people).

Fewer rivets also mean that the B-24 was not as rugged or strong as the B-17, the loss rate not withstanding.

An other item to be considered, is that the B-17 was in combat longer than the B-24,particularly in the early days in the Pacific, where the only bomber of the two was the B-17. I suspect that if the B-24 HAD been in combat at the earliest stages of the war,that the loss rate of the B-24 would have been much higher.
As you know, the B-24 replaced the B-17 in the Pacific....the B-17 were USED UP and worn out, with many salvaged parts used to keep the B-17s going...the war in the ETO took priority,over the Pacific.

The comparison as to the loss rate, is not complete without taking in the consideration of all factors, which to me at least, do not show in most reports. Again, wach the two Collings aircraft together on engine runup. the horizontal stabilizers of the B-17 move about 6 inches up and down, and the horizontal stabilizers of the B-24 move considerably more..and the entire aft fuselage of the B-24 is twisting as well. This could also explain why the B-24 could not be ditched sucessfully.

When a vertical stabilizer is bent on the B-24, the crew chief (so I have heard), merely bends it back into position...have you heard of this happening to a B-17 ?  I cannot vouch for this, as I have only heard of this happening.

Also, the nose gear on the B-24 was notoriously fragile, as evidenced by the repatriation of the POWs in Romania, where the B-17s had to be used...the nose gear of the B-24s precluded their use on the dirt strips. 

So, I happen to differ with you as to the definition of ruggedness.

Respectfullly,

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)

Your question seems to be a quest for opinions from those of us who flew the big birds. Jim's answers are accurate, but maybe not what your asking for. Point is, we were all 21 year old kids, and not rocket scientists. We based all of our opinions on personal experience, and propaganda. We all flew only one plane, the 24 or the 17. And our instructors pounded in the superiority of ours vs. theirs. In actual fact, both had good and bad characteristics. All I can remember, is loving the 4 engine whore, which is what we called the 24,but not really knowing why we thought one better than the other. Naive maybe, but true!
RHD
P.S. I beat Jules to the site this time.

Robert...As I tried to point out....the aircraft that brought you back was the best...regardless of all the rhetoric about the differences.
 
As a B-17 flight engineer, my evaluation has been formed in part, by persons who have flown and mantained both.. And I freely admit, I am knowledgeable only on the B-17.
 
The Boeing Company did an evaluation on the B-17, comparing the old method of slipsticks or slide rules, to the present day computer method and found that the WWII B-17 was overengineered to a factor of 20...in other words, by use of the slide rule., the B-17 was 20 times stronger than it needed to be,in comparison to the method used today.
 
I suspect the same statement could be applied to ALL aircraft developed in WW II by the US,including the B-24.
 
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, thank you for the details views of the planes and a very big thank you for having served and survived those many flights.
 
I have had the pleasure of knowing a number of pilots, navigators, flight engineers, etc who flew primarily in Europe.  A number became POW's and some families lost members.  Your comments are great history.  Thanks again.
 
I have only started to study some specifics of the Pacific operations and how the planes served the war effort.
 
In reading the history of the 42nd BG in the pacific, there seemed to be a big effort to utilize the B-24's for low level missions, including topedo runs, bouncing bombs, strafing, etc., as well has high level bomb sorties.    I especially found the comments in the book on pilots prefering low level 2-300 ft runs preferable to higher level and the flac action.  This could be one of the altitude differences mentioned above on survivability of planes under ground attack.
 
Was the B-17 designed to do any low level type of mission (recognizing the differences in European bombing missions) or were they entirely high level?
 
Additionally, from reading or watching movies, most of the planes took such a beating from Axis gunners, that survivability and the ability to return home with limited engines and hydrolics had to be a reason to prefer one plane over another.   The construciton details mentioned above is great information.
 
Thank you for sharing.
 
Wes in Ohio.

I made a big goof, I got the b-24 and b-25 mixed up.  It was the B-25 that did the low level bomb runs and strafing.  Sorry for the mixup.  A little reading can be dangerous as I demonstrated.
 
Wes in Ohio

Wes,   Honest mistake!   I had noted the possible confusion in one of your earlier posts, and did not have time to slip in a note from work.  I had thought that you may have been  referring to the low level Ploesti raid of 01AU43, or indeed the confusion with the B-25 Mitchell.  I also have a painting in my office of the B-24J  in the motif of "the Dragon and His Tail" which, upon first viewing might give the impression of a "low level straffing run."  Also there are many folks here at Willow Run who "think" we have a B-24 at the Yankee Air Force, when in fact they  "see" only the twin tail of our B-25.  Although this is not directly related to my initial thread, thought I'd send this note along.    "they are not forgotten!     Steven

Steven Puhl
Willow Run Historian
Willow Run: Home of 8685 Ford Built B-24 Liberators
Life Member: YANKEE AIR MUSEUM (YAM) "Where History Flies"
"They are not forgotten!"

Jim -
   A historical note on losses  in the early days of the Pacofic War.  Fourteen B-17C and D's of thirty in the 19th Bomb Group got out of the Philippines and were available at the start of he Java Campaign 12 Jan 42 to 3 March 42.  They were joined by 12 LB-30's, B-24's allocated to Great Britain but retained by the USAAC with UK designation and serial numbers.  These, with their disposition, were:
AL609.  Arr Java 1/11 - destroyed on ground Jogjakarta in air raid 3/1/42
AL612.  Arr Java 1/11 - destroyed on ground while being salvaged 2/27/42
AL535. Arr Java 1/11 - crash landed Masalembo Is due to battle damage2/17/42
AL576. Arr Java  1/12 - Battle damage - crash landed Macasser, partly salvaged 1/17/42
AL570 Arr 1/24.  Survived campaign
AL508  Arr1/26  Survived campaign
AL521  Arr 1/26.  Destroyed air raid Darwin 2/19/42
AL533  Arr 1/30.  Destroyed on ground Jogjakarta, beyond repair 3/1/42
AL567  Arr 2/4.   Destroyed on ground Jogjakarta in air raid  2/22/42
AL515  Arr 2/5.  Survived campaign
AL608  Arr 2/12.  Flew Gen Wavell to India 3/3/42 and stayed.
AL572  Arr 2/15.  Destroyed in air raid Jogjakarta 3/1/42 
 
Four survived campaign
Four destroyed in air raids
Two destroyed on ground when evacuation eminent
Two lost to battle damage
 
They operated mainly at night .  The fourteen B-17's of the 19th Group lost eight on the ground to enemy action,  one shot down, two crashed on takeoff and landing and three survived the campaign
Taking up the slack during this period 39 B-17E's arrived fron the ZI, taking up the combat load.
 
Bob Mann

Thanks Bob...I am somewhat hazy on the early days in the Pacific...you have added to my knowledge.
 
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)

RHD    Yes you beat me, I also agree with you 100%

MCoffee    During my tour we never flew above 26M feet. To repeat what I previously stated, B24s flew with us on several of my missions, when attacked by fighters they only went after B24s, why? Maybe they were more easy to shoot down, or maybe because they couldn't fly as tight formation as the B17s. The Germans were going for an easier target, they were interested in score, also they were looking to protect their own a**. I still feel that B24s were our best escorts.

Jim    You omitted the fact that engine feathering was also hydraukically controlled. I had a piece of flak cut a line and before I could feather the engine, the result was that I had a windmilling prop for 3+ hours, it cost the AAC an engine.

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

Jim,   I agree with your comment about not being able to compare productivity figures (apples to apples) between the B-17 (3 facilities) and the B-24 (5).  However, as an amateur writer and history buff, I obviously favor the FO built Libs.  "Ford had a better idea" in using the automotive assembly line concept to mass produce A/C's at Willow Run.  Did this make this a  "better aircraft?" Statistics can tell you a lot, but I don't know.  An interesting point is, however, that this type of production made for the ease of interchangeable parts and the ability to introduce engineering changes to the A/C more rapidly.  This, however, might be another thread.  The bottom line is that which ever brought you home safely, from a personal perspective, was the better.  Steven

Steven Puhl
Willow Run Historian
Willow Run: Home of 8685 Ford Built B-24 Liberators
Life Member: YANKEE AIR MUSEUM (YAM) "Where History Flies"
"They are not forgotten!"

Steve,..This is an ongoing discussion ever since WW II....One thing I heard, was that when Ford was told to produce the B-24 and incorporated the assembly line concept, they asked for paperwork from Consolidated on the latest engineering changes from Consolidated...and were told that nothing was written down..it was still in the minds of the Consolidated engineers....and that made it all the difficult to finally chase down the changes.
 
If I am not mistaken, there is a PB4Y-2 at the Yankee Air Force, that came from Hawkins and Powers..the fire fighting outfit from Wyoming. I know they wanted a B-24, and this is close.
 
I am a member of the Yankee Air Force and attended several meetings of the B-17 CO-OP where we would visit other museums to exchange information on the flying B-17s...I had to skip meetings as my wife entered a nursing home, and I was not able to attend.
 
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,        You are correct about the blueprints and, probably one of the most informative books about this process was the one written by Warren Kidder entitled:  Willow Run: Colossus of American Industry.  The Kidder family owned the property on which Willow Run was built.  There are many stories here!   Yes, as a member of the Yankee Air Force, we attempted to acquire  a true Lib for restoration, but could not.  We do have a static display of a PB4Y-2 Privateer acquired in 1987 which has been recently resurfaced and painted. There is quite a story behind this which I'll post on a later thread.  As to whether a FO Lib was better than any of the other,  I'm partial!!!  Steven

Attached Image(s)

Steven Puhl
Willow Run Historian
Willow Run: Home of 8685 Ford Built B-24 Liberators
Life Member: YANKEE AIR MUSEUM (YAM) "Where History Flies"
"They are not forgotten!"