B-24 versus B-17

RE: B-24 versus B-17 (b24bestweb)

Sat, 15 Nov 2008 12:55:54 GMT

Charles

Actually, when I started the new "LB-30 thread" under "Combat Cargo, Troop Transport, & Gliders"...
http://forum.armyairforces.com/LB30-Land-Bomber-m162776.aspx
... I wasn't sure where to put the "LB-30"!

A lot of them were converted by Consolidated-Nashville to transport/cargo service and used by Consairways.

I'll leave it up to "The Staff", on where to move it... to its correct forum?

RE: B-24 versus B-17 (GLIDERMAN1)

Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:07:00 GMT

Jim Peters,
Hope you are fine.

There is a B-24 (LB) discussion that got into the TC glider area by mistake.

Re: your message adding PB4Y quantities to B-24 quantities.

Copying my reply here. :
--------quote----------
Re:LB-30 Land Bomber - 11/14/2008 02:48:54 PM
..... [text omitted]

Just noticed too that the B-24 AAF and Navy articles are duplicated in Andrade listings. Eg., B24-D CO serial block, 41-23825/23849 includes PB4Y-1 Bu31936/31937 Ex.41-23826/23827. Thus, PB4Y articles can not be added to the B-24 article production quantities to arrive at production totals?
........end quote.......

If this is correct and if quantity is determined by serial number blocks, adding PB4Y quantities to B-24 would incorrectly increase total B-24 production.

Charles Day

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

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:07:14 GMT

Lately some slighly different issues have surfaced regarding capacities for ammunition and bomb loads on both A/C's. I've included the link for the one on ammunition specifically because it does point out that, regardless of the A/C in question, fuel load, mission assignment, etc. play a part. Also as pointed out, each station was speced-out for specific amount of ammo.

http://forum.armyairforces.com/B17-B24-reserve-of-ammunition-m162617.aspx

Hope this is of interest to those Readers who frequent this Thread in particular! Thanks!

RE: B-24 versus B-17 You are correct about the Pacific is was a different kind of war. (PA.Dutchman)

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:58:53 GMT

Seventh Air Force Combined Air Component Command (CACC)

[As one of the four Numbered Air Forces in Pacific Air Forces (PACAF), Seventh Air Force (7 AF) has a distinguished heritage that is deeply rooted in the Pacific. Initially, 7 AF activated on 1 November 1940 as the Hawaiian Air Force.

The fledgling 7 AF's involvement in World War II was best summed up by its air and ground views as "Just one damned island after another!" 7 AF fought the Japanese imperial might from Hawaii 2,000 miles southwest to the Gilberts, then 600 miles northwest to the Marshalls, 900 miles west to the Carolines, 600 miles northwest to the Marianas, 600 miles north to Iwo Jima, 1,000 miles west to Okinawa, always edging closer towards the center of Japanese power. A map story of the 7 AF would cover 3,000 miles north and south of Midway to Fiji, and 5,000 miles east and west from Pearl Harbor to the Ryukus.

The saga of the 7 AF's aerial exploits across the Central Pacific has the "rags-to-riches" qualities of a Horatio Alger story. First the almost complete decimation of the Hawaiian Air Force (predecessor of the 7 AF) at Pearl Harbor, then its gradual build-up and vast oceanic search missions to keep the enemy at bay. Later, long-range heavy bomber attacks softened up strategic islands for amphibious invasions, with greater weight brought against the enemy perimeter defense by the advance of fighter and medium bombers. Finally, after constant consolidation of gains, 7 AF smashed at Japan directly from both Iwo Jima, as escort to the long-range strategic B-29s, and from Okinawa with the Far East Air Forces in the rocky Ryukus, right up to the surrender of Japan.

The Seventh was the first air force to feel the enemy's weight and the first to take toll of the enemy. It flew longer to battle, used wider range of aircraft, and covered more territory than any land-based Air Force. It fought and bombed by day and night, flew distant reconnaissance missions, dropped every type of bomb and incendiary, sunk enemy shipping, mined enemy waters, and performed countless routine and special jobs. Its personnel served on isolated coral atolls, received scant recognition, and endured months of dreary monotony.

By necessity, 7 AF was a precision-bombing unit. Its commander, Major General Willis Hale, summed up 7 AF's contribution by saying: "The target had to be directly hit. The difference of 40 feet one way or the other meant that bombs would either land on the lagoon on one side of the island or the ocean on the other. And we didn't fly 2,000 miles to kill fish."

RE: B-24 versus B-17 You are correct about the Pacific is was a different kind of war. (PA.Dutchman)

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:45:41 GMT

You are correct about the Pacific is was a different kind of war. My father was in the 11 BG H the 42 Squadron they were the first to go after the Japanese with B-17s. They fought at Midway, Guadalcanal, Santo, the Solomon Islands and finally on February 1, 1943 they sent their last three B17s out to be shot down over the Pacific, only one from the 72 Squadron crash landed on a beach.

All my fathers friends from the early years were gone, he lost many at Hickam and even more in the Pacific. It isn't like Europe where they might have a crash site and burial grounds there is NOTHING.

I have managed to find some family members whose fathers, brothers and B-17 were never found. They have nothing to hold close to them but a few old photos. My father was a T/S Armorer 911 and I did connect with Lt. Krey who told me they finally had to order my father not to go up as a gunner any longer they could not afford to lose anymore Armorers there were none to replace him.

I came here and I found on one person, Phil, whose brother was on one of those last three planes of the 42 Squadron shot down over the Pacific never to be seen again.

Hal Hall has put together an excellent report on the last mission of the 42 Squadron. They lived in tents, they suffered through disease, bugs, rats, rain and worse but they drove the Japanese back.

Their Naval Authority recommended the Army Air Corps' 42 Squadron 11 BG H for the Presidential Unit Citation. In the book "Fortress Against the Sun" it mention this was the only time a sister service recommended another for this honor.

Take a look around how many Veterans do you have coming here from the Pacific War from June 1942 until February 1943? Just about none, I haven't met any since I came here. One recently who flew in the 72 Squadron and was transfered to the European War mailed me from this site.

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

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:47:53 GMT

ORIGINAL: donf

You may be interested in an incident involving a B-24M manufactured by Ford which was assigned to the 867th Bomb Squadron of the 494th Bomb Group. The pilot of this plane reported that its skin seemed thinner than the previous B-24 models he flew (B24 J models manufactured by Consolidated) and that the skin rattled in strong wind. The plane was also lighter than the rest of the planes in the squadron and cruising speed was higher.

Don, Can't give you too much detail on this, but will tell you what I know. On the FO WR Libs the aluminum skin thickness (spec) was from .28" to .025" on the "J" variant thru the "M." This basically meant that from this aspect, there would be some variation depending upon the section(s) of aluminum roll from which the respective part/section of the A/C was stamped (manufactureres allow a variation). I cannot speak for the CO variants. Also, paint would have an effect. FO WR discontinued the use of camouflage/OD paint mid February, 1944, on the "H" variants (don't know if this was in the mix about which you posted). Aluminum thickness, paint, number of rivets would undoubtely make a difference as well as "drag" caused by any aberration deflecting air flow, say for example, a sliding bomb bay door, torn/damaged aluminum,etc. Since his was not mentioned in the incident you reported, one would assume an undamaged A/C. This may not help, but it's a start. Also, I'd like to copy this over to my History: Willow Run B-24 Thread. Thanks! Best Regards! Steven

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

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:56:41 GMT

I have the impression that there weren't many B-24s equipped for radar bombing in the Pacific. A radar operator in that theater mentioned that a small group of radar men sailed to Saipan in the Fall of 1944 to join the 7th Air Force .It appears that these men were not ordinary crew members but were assigned to the few planes equipped with radar and flew with whatever crews were assigned to those planes. I was also told by a pilot who flew a radar equipped plane in a mission over Shanghai that his was the only plan in his group equipped with radar and that the flight leader broke radio silence to order him to lead the bombing run over the harbor because it was obscured by clouds. He further related that guerrillas reported that the results of the bombing were good and that ,after the war, he personally met two men who had resided in the international settlement in Shanghai at the time and whose vivid memories of the raid confirmed what the guerrillas had reported

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

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:09:24 GMT

You may be interested in an incident involving a B-24M manufactured by Ford which was assigned to the 867th Bomb Squadron of the 494th Bomb Group. The pilot of this plane reported that its skin seemed thinner than the previous B-24 models he flew (B24 J models manufactured by Consolidated) and that the skin rattled in strong wind. The plane was also lighter than the rest of the planes in the squadron and cruising speed was higher. One one mission over the Japanese home islands, the planes were lining up to bomb ships and harbor facilities. The formation first made a large turn to the left and then a large turn to the right just before the start of the bomb run. This particular plane was on the far left end of the formation and started to stall when the formation turned left. All of the pilots were first lieutenants so they took turns leading the formations on missions. The leader that day apparently didn't
realize that the formation would have to increase speed on the turns to help keep the planes on the end in the air. As this plane started to stall, the pilot slid it to the right 50 feet below the remainder of the planes and
moved it to the other end of the formation. no sooner had he done that then the formation started the turn to the right. He then slid his plane to the left under the rest of the formation until it returned to its original position onthe left side of the formation. during the second slide, all of the bomb bay doors were open. He made it just it time to avoid being hit by falling bombs from other planes.

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

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:05:00 GMT

Thank you.
Replying to earlier messages in this thread , I understand that B-24s largely replaced B-17s in the Central Pacific starting in 1943. The heavy groups operating in that area, the 11th and 30th Bomb Groups of the 7th Air Force, used B-24s while conducting operations from Kwajalein, Saipan and Guam. The 494th Bomb Group of the 7th Air Force also operated B-24 from Angaur and Okinawa.
I am looking for information about B-24s used to repatriate POWs from Japan at the end of the war. I know that B-24s stationed on Okinawa
were used to transport ill POWs from Japan to Okinawa and Manila but I have been unable to find details of these missions on the Internet.

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

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:13:59 GMT

Don, Welcome aboard a very great Site! I enjoyed your post and have copied it over to the Thread: B-24: Ditching at Sea within this same sub-forum, where it ties in very nicely. I'm sure that based on the content, you may be getting some responding posts. To be honest, I've not read (heard) about too many success stories for the Lib where ditching at sea was concerned. In my initial post, I had mistakenly used a "bad pic" which was noted by another "poster." Live and learn! Great searching and enjoy the Site! Best Regards! Steven

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

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:01:27 GMT

Gentlemen:
There are excellent Internet sources of information on B-24 operations in the Pacific . B-24s were ditched in the Pacific without breaking apart. One
B-24 for the 27th Bomb Squadron, 30th Bomb Group, called "Miss B Haven"
ditched one on July 5 ,1944 ,1500 yards off Eniwetok ,after the plane had been hit by flak over Truk and lost a great deal of fuel. The flight engineer was killed but the rest of the crew survived. The flight engineer was the most vulnerable because he was assigned to release the life raft and had to remain in a dangerous position to do so. The pilot and co-pilot were thrown out through the front widows and suffered broken collarbones when each hit the metal compass. The remainderofthe crew had only bruises. The plane remained afloat for 20 minutes after the ditch. the details are covered in a Missing Aircraft Report.

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

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 08:36:12 GMT

It wasn't my quote, it is directly from the book "One Damned Island After Another". I gave it as the source of the information and where to find it in the book.

Sounds like some of my coworkers debating Fords and Chevy's.

But they would never go so far as being dismissed from their job other their beliefs as these two individuals were.

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

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 06:35:41 GMT

ORIGINAL: PA.

"The men of the Seventh accepted the change (from B-17s to B-24s) simply as further proof that they were a bastard outfit-foredoomed to fly airplanes that no body else wanted."

Gregg, As mentioned in Janos' post, this quote sounds similar as the crews switched A/C's from Forts to Libs, or, maybe more aptly expressed from "beauty to beast!" I would, however, hazard a guess that those who flew the Lib, and returned home safely, thought it the best A/C they had ever flown. From reading and re-reading this Thread and other accounts, I've always marveled at the personal resaons why one A/C was preferred (or detested) over the other be it from structural, aesthetics or an avionics point of view. Best Regards! Steven

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

Sun, 06 Jul 2008 21:03:31 GMT

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

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

"The men of the Seventh accepted the change (from B-17s to B-24s) simply as further proof that they were a bastard outfit-foredoomed to fly airplanes that no body else wanted.

The feeling against the B-24s persisted so strongly that General Hale found it necessary to relieve the Group Commander and one squadron commander of the 90 TH. group; the disparaging statements made by members of the group about the B-24 had reached even General Arnold in Washington.

The bitterness lessened but did not altogether die when on December 22 1943 Colonel William A Matheeny lead a flight of 26 Liberators to Wake Island."

Interesting since this book was published in 1946 and memories were still pretty strong and the war was only over by months.

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

Sun, 06 Jul 2008 20:53:52 GMT

Tonight, I thought I'd add a post from "Janos" who had responded to me in a post on another Thread which I thought appropriate to add onto this Thread. Best Regards! Steven

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

_____________________________

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

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

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

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 14:53:57 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 08:55:21 GMT

I am sure in the eary days of the Pacific, that there were missions that the B17 and B-24 did go on missions together....they used what was available.

Also, in North Africa,the 376th BG, prior to the actual certification as the 376th BG, when it was still the Halpro Project, had 8 to 9 B-17s from India attached to assist in the war against Rommel, and which flew together on missions.
But, these were not the norm.

The 376th BG also had 4 B-24s that flew as the Yugoslavian Air Force attached to the Group, accordng to the 376th History book.

Jim :-)

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

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:18:25 GMT

This is directly from this sites day by day of the War. It sounds like the B-17s and B-24s did go on this mission together.

4 B-17's and 3 B-24's bomb shipping in Kiska Harbor from an altitude of 700 ft, lowest altitude yet. 2 cruisers are hit and one scout seaplane is downed. 2 B-17's are heavily damaged but return to base. Japanese bomb Nazan Bay, Atka

http://www.armyairforces.com/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx

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

Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:42:16 GMT

Jim, Thanks for straightening me out! Actually I was just curious as things aren't always as they appear, and even though I had read several threads (includinjg this one) in which air speeds came into question, I was still curious. Always appeciate your time and insights!

Mike, Liked your stats and quote! No, matter how you cut it, they both were great A/C's!

Best Regards! Steven

RE: B-24 versus B-17 (jhor9)

Mon, 02 Jun 2008 10:27:16 GMT

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