B-24 versus B-17

Re:B-24 versus B-17 (WillowRun)

Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:05:30 GMT

Tonight while flipping back thru Ploesti: The Great Ground-Air Air Battle of 1 August 1943 which I had just completed, I found this short passager which I thought I'd share. It has to do with one of those "ugly birds" named Hail Columbia flown by John R. "Killer" Kane on the infamous TW mission. Kane brought his men safely home, albeit a tumultuous stop on Cyprus, in a ship that was "short on gas, withone engine gone and another turning a buzzing prop with two shot-up tips. He had a warped main spar and hundred of flak holes, yet the Lib made it." Considering the disastrous Ploesti losses, his A/C brought them thru it safely.

Re:B-24 versus B-17 (Yunch)

Mon, 11 Jan 2010 08:05:59 GMT

Bill,
Yes it is friendly bantering and if I may take from Bob Gilberts metaphor of boxing and being a "FORMER" fight fan of the 30s and 40s, The B-17 reminds me of Billy Conn and Rocky Marciano. Billy with the finese of an artist and Rocky a great heavy weight champ. The B-24 reminds me of two ton Tony Galento only because of it's size. The actions of the B-24 in battle reminds me of the tenacity of Rocky " The Bull" Grazziano, a middle weight champ. You had to see him against the ropes looking like any minute he is going down for the count and when the opponent backed off he came out and cleaned the guys clock. If he had the size and weight he could have been a heavyweight champ like the B-24. Yes, because time has taken it's toll on my memory, I had to take a refresher course at Wikepedia to confirm that my mind is still with the program..
God Bless all the people home and abroad that had anything what so ever to do with these two great flying "Champions Of Flight" in WWII. Amen

Re:B-24 versus B-17 (rhdodd)

Mon, 11 Jan 2010 07:12:32 GMT

Bill, you got it right except for your final statement, which any of us who flew the 4 enginne w@@@e realize is from
the bad luck of flying the wrong bird!
RHD

Re:B-24 versus B-17 (billrunnels)

Sat, 09 Jan 2010 09:58:41 GMT

This exchange has been going on for a long time. It began during the war between crew members of the B-17 and B-24. It was nothing more than a form of friendly bantering in those days and it remains the same today. In my opinion, those who are in a position to make an evaluation based on first hand experience really don't care. It is the bantering that revives memories of those challenging days. May it always remain that way.( By the way, the B-17 was the better of the two !)

Re:B-24 versus B-17 (WillowRun)

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:20:00 GMT

Yunch

Steven,
Every time I see the replys to this post come up (mine will be 273) ?, I think of a childs eye view of the B-24 a few years before you became a member of this forum. This child was taken by his dad a forum member to some kind of WWII AAF what ever, I dont recall, the child said whats that when he spotted a B-24?, his dads reply a B-24 airplane, huh said the child, looks like a truck to me. I am no authority on aircraft, was the B-24 an ugly duckling versus the B-17?, in the eyes of this old man you bet your bipee it was. The botom line is WWII was not a wee wee contest between beautifull aircraft, ships etc. it was a contest of who can get the job done. Ugly, beautifull, fast, slow, 15th, 8th, 9th, 12th, 14th, and all the other AAFs in the Pacific and the ships at sea did the best with what they had and the bottom line is, With The Help Of The Home Team We Won,ugly ducklings and all.

John, Luv it...Luv it... Luv it... As an "unequivocal, unabashed, diehard, for-life LIB-lover," I relished your post! To me, the Lib WAS UGLY and abused! But, having worked in the plant where the "ghosts of the 8685 FO WR Libs roamed" and being the Plant Historian...I am 100% prejudice! However, as Jim Peters and I have always agreed (post #271), "the one that brought you back was the best." The war could not have been won without both the Fort and the Lib!

Re:B-24 versus B-17 (Bob Gilbert)

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:15:31 GMT

bstewart

Both great aircraft and I absolutely love this thread!

bstewart

bstewart,
I do too. Both machines evoke strong emotions. I am openly prejudiced in favor of the Fortress.
In my minds eye, a veteran B-17, awkwardly sitting on a hard stand, looks like a tough middle weight boxer...scarred from previous fights. Refusing to quit she waits for the bell to get back in there to slug it out once again. Once in the air she becomes regal with her haughty vertical stabilizer jutting sky ward, and soars to the fight!

The B-24 reminds me, to stay with boxing metaphor, more of a young physically well developed boxer standing between rounds and confidentally moving in to engage the enemy serenely unaware of any opposition.

Please forgive my little flight of fancy, guys!

Re:B-24 versus B-17 (vic-513)

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:56:19 GMT

Right on the money, Yunch. Everyone doing their part got the job done, no matter where they were or what kind of planes and equipment they had. Land, sea, or air, we had the best of them all and I thank the Lord for all, especially the ones who weren't able to come back to enjoy our freedom that was paid for in blood.

Vic

Re:B-24 versus B-17 (Yunch)

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:30:52 GMT

Steven,
Every time I see the replys to this post come up (mine will be 273) ?, I think of a childs eye view of the B-24 a few years before you became a member of this forum. This child was taken by his dad a forum member to some kind of WWII AAF what ever, I dont recall, the child said whats that when he spotted a B-24?, his dads reply a B-24 airplane, huh said the child, looks like a truck to me. I am no authority on aircraft, was the B-24 an ugly duckling versus the B-17?, in the eyes of this old man you bet your bipee it was. The botom line is WWII was not a wee wee contest between beautifull aircraft, ships etc. it was a contest of who can get the job done. Ugly, beautifull, fast, slow, 15th, 8th, 9th, 12th, 14th, and all the other AAFs in the Pacific and the ships at sea did the best with what they had and the bottom line is, With The Help Of The Home Team We Won,ugly ducklings and all.

Re:B-24 versus B-17 (bstewart)

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:43:46 GMT

Both great aircraft and I absolutely love this thread!

My father-in-law flew in B-18s before the war and by the time his unit (5th BG) was attacked at Hickam Field 12/7/41, they had converted to B-17s. He flew 63 combat missions in B-17s (Midway, Espiritu Santo, Guadalcanal . . . ) before he was sent back to the states for medical reasons (dysentery, malaria, etc.) in '43.

After a one-year stateside tour, he volunteered for combat again and by April '44 he was flying out of Toretta in B-24s. Twenty more combat missions and was WIA 6/6/44 by flak on a mission to Polesti. This ended his flying career . . .

He always said that the B-17 was his favorite airplane.

Re:B-24 versus B-17 (jpeters140)

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:50:06 GMT

Steve...As you and I have both agreed, the "One that brought you back" is the favored aircraft by the crews of both the B-17 and B-24.

JIm :-)

Re:B-24 versus B-17 (WillowRun)

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:09:25 GMT

In the recently released hardbound book, B-24 Combat Missions, by Martin Bowman (Book Review link: http://forum.armyairforces.com/B24-COMBAT-MISSIONS-m179917.aspx, there is an interesting two page section (pp. 52-53) dealing with the "good-natured" bantering between Lib and Fort Lovers along with some "unflattering Lib pix." There are some very short readable descriptions of these differences. As one B-24 VET summed it up: "The B-24 Liberator was my friend and respected companion; as ugly as a whistling **** house and yet truly a magnificent lady."

Re:B-24 versus B-17 (WillowRun)

Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:24:40 GMT

Tonight, while my wife was sorting thru her art and piano books, she found one of my B-24 books from the past (a review was posted on the "Book Corner" sub-forum on 26MA08) entitled: THE SOLDIER: Consolidated B-24 Liberator. On the rear cover the "companion" book to the "Soldier" was listed as: THE LADY: Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress. When my eye caught this, it reminded me of this Thread and yet another comparison between these two famous planes to be added to the list of comparisons. Long live the memory of both the "Soldier" and the "Lady" and the memory of those men who flew them!

RE: B-24 versus B-17 (PA.Dutchman)

Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:47:11 GMT

What a fair and decent assessment of both bombers. It was refreshing to read, and I appreciate your first hand knowledge of these two fine bombers.

It took both bombers to do a great job with great crews to fly them and win the war.

I salute you and thank you as well for being there when your nation needed you and doing your job to the best of your ability.

God bless you and my HE keep all our World War II Veterans close to Him always.

Re:B-24 versus B-17 (WillowRun)

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:21:49 GMT

Tonight in a letter from Bob Sternfels in which we had been discussing WR and some issues with "quantities of B-24 production," he made reference to the training of pilots on four engine bombers. I thought his comment by the OIC was interesting.

After returning from my year over in Africa and Italy, I was assigned to the Training Command in Washington, DC. I asked the OIC why our class was given both B17 and B24 training....his answer was....a Second Lt, did not know the difference between the two planes and thought it would not make a difference how they were trained.....How did that guy make it to officer grade?
What really happened ...B24s were coming off the assembly line in greater numbers then any other plane and it was difficult to train crews to keep up with the production. The Air Force probably kept pace with crew training and production after our class as I never heard anyone who was given training in both 4 engine bombers other than our class.

Re:B-24 versus B-17 (WillowRun)

Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:11:28 GMT

Today while doing some research in The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh (New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1970, p. 694), I came across this snippet which I thought would fit into this fray albeit my prejudice to the B-24 Liberator. (Keep in mind that Charles was hired by Henry Ford as a Consultant to the Ford Willow Run Plant to expedite both the B-24 engineering changes and to offer suggestions to improve upon lagging production on the manufacturing floor.)
"...spent twenty minutes with General Arnold discussing Ford production... defects of the B-24, lack of armament, etc. Arnold says the combat squadrons greatly prefer the B-17 (Boeing four-engine bomber), because "when we send the 17's out on a mission, most of them return. But, when we send the 24's out, a good many of them don't." Arnold says the B-17's "can take terrific punishment" and often land "full of bullet holes," crew members dead and wounded, but still they get back." Subsequent discussion evolved into improved armor plating and redesigned nose armament on the B-24's initiated at FO WR. Strangely enough, this question popped up again while doing an interview in SF this past weekend.

Re:B-24 versus B-17 (WillowRun)

Mon, 20 Jul 2009 08:52:07 GMT

Yesterday, during some extra time at the Thunder Over Michigan (TOM), I had the opportunity to sit and talk with Ted "Dutch" Van Kirk, who is now the sole survivor of the B-29 "Enola Gay" crew. As we sat there looking across the tarmac toward the Willow Run Plant, our conversation turned toward the B-24 and the B-17. "Dutch" had flown 59 missions in the ETO on the B-17 prior to his B-29 experience and had asked a lot of questions about FO WR. In good natured discussion, I asked him which was the "better" A/C? Smiling, he said that he had trained on the B-17, had flown many missions, and there was no question in his mind. He felt "safer" in the B-17, but again, that was his experience. We also both settled on
"whatever A/C got you home safely." He was very affable, and a very focused person with whom to speak. I immensely enjoyed our 10 minutes together.

RE: B-24 versus B-17 (WillowRun)

Sun, 15 Mar 2009 20:12:13 GMT

Ian, Cleverly written and to the point! Ah yes, it must be the "old Bard" in you sallying forth! As time goes on, I'm sure that "new legs" will also grow! As usual, all the best to you from across "the Pond."

RE: B-24 versus B-17 (Ian White)

Sun, 15 Mar 2009 11:25:12 GMT

Hello Forum...
Amazingly this thread and accumilated postings has grown several pairs of legs, dare I say, a healthy pair of wings (Davis or Boeing? I would not wish to admit to, for fear of making it a personal issue!!).

I would like to stick my head just above the sandbags of the AAF front line.. and say.. Thank the Almighty, we havent even considered the Avro Lancaster-Handley Page Halifax subject. Like the USAAF, the RAF had their fair share of robust conversations, majority of which were as said by Steve, amiable historian, all done with good humour.

A war was waged, and fought in many ways; land, sea and yes.. very much in the air. And, whatever means was used whilst riding the thermals into battle, that campaign was eventually won. All played their part in that hard won victory. Those that survive, should and must be given every right to share humour in their own way. This we at least owe to those that lived that history, paying in many occassions what was a terrible sacrifice. Humour, I would guess our vets here will vouch for, was one of those rare but dependable traits that helped get them through some extremely harrowing times.

24, 17.... Lanc or Halibag... Spit or Hurricane... 51 or 47..... They did the job and more....

Ian W... (wearing his suitably hardened helmet against enemy rounds!)

RE: B-24 versus B-17 (WillowRun)

Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:18:06 GMT

Heinzrichter

Now what is to argue about. you flew B17 you got home and you Flew B24 and you also got home.
Now stand down and behave.
I am as a youngster tired of reading "my plane was better than yours"
I want to learn from you vets not to spend time reading your fights.

Heinzrichter, As the one who "authored" this Thread a long time ago, I'd like to add a few wods that echo what Jim Peters mentioned in the previous post. If you take a good look at the topics found within the Thread, there are many subjects which lead to various discussions, new Threads, related Threads, questions, oral histories and the like. Throughout all of this, however, there is the common notion of "light-heartedness" and "good-natured bantering" which is healthy and pretty normal among American Vets, Historians, families, friends and aviation enthusiasts. It is not a question of arguing, misbehaving, fighting or needing to stand down, but rather a question of passion for the planes we all love and about which we talk, write and banter. It is seen not only in this Thread, but in others on the Site. It is seen in books, on other Sites, in magazines and defintely is heard in conversations where a few enthusiasts gather together to discuss and debate this plane or that plane! I believe that part of this learning process is to hear differences. I believe that this truly is the intent and feeling of those on this Site. If anything would arise that would seem "out-of-line," I am sure that the WebMaster or one of the Moderators would summarily address it as required.

RE: B-24 versus B-17 (jpeters140)

Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:29:30 GMT

Heinzrichter...I don't think you understand the American humor.....yes , we flew and some of us came home as you stated.

This is somewhat like General McAuliffe at the Battle of the Bulge...when asked to surrender, he answered the Germans with "NUTS !"

About the only time these arguments get serious, is when the participants have too much to drink...otherwise it is good natured kidding around.

When I fell out of the attic and cracked everything on my left side...a Marine GY SGT, told me I was lucky I had not landed on my head....I would have cracked the garage floor all the way to the door.

If this subject gets too serious....then you will find no one participating in conversation.

Jim :-)