Author Topic: B17 vs B24  (Read 3196 times)

Offline the Lazy ace

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 66
B17 vs B24
« on: January 13, 2006, 03:30:09 PM »
for give me if others have asked this but tell what yall think is a more ideal bomber
« Last Edit: January 13, 2006, 03:59:38 PM by the Lazy ace »

Offline croduh

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2509
B17 vs B24
« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2006, 03:48:00 PM »
b24 for fields,b17 for towns, i think

Offline Jester

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2753
B17 vs B24
« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2006, 04:57:20 PM »
IIRC....

The B-17 is a little sturdier - harder to shoot down.

The B-24 has a thinner wing so if you hit it in the right place it is easier to down than the B-17. B-24 is a little faster though.

:aok
Lt. JESTER
VF-10 "GRIM REAPERS"

WEBSITE:  www.VF10.org

Offline cav58d

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3985
B17 vs B24
« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2006, 05:12:12 PM »
I am more apprehensive about attacking a B-24 opposed to the -17
<S> Lyme

Sick Puppies II

412th Friday Night Volunteer Group

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
B17 vs B24
« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2006, 05:17:08 PM »
Hi Jester,

>The B-17 is a little sturdier - harder to shoot down.

>The B-24 has a thinner wing so if you hit it in the right place it is easier to down than the B-17. B-24 is a little faster though.

The WW2 Luftwaffe pilots were in fact convinced that the B-24 was easier to shoot down than the B-24. However, it looks like the numbers show the opposite to be true.

I have got "B-17 Flying Fortress" by HP Willmott here with a breakdown of the 8th Air Force bomber units by type, sorties, tonnage on target and losses.

Counting only the combat losses, I can compare the combat survivability of the B-17 and B-24. (I'm leaving out a few bomber groups operating both types as their successes and losses can't be identified by type.)

The total 8th Air Force B-17/B-24 losses were 1.50% per sortie.

The B-17 losses were 1.64% per sortie.

The B-24 losses were 1.21% per sortie.

Surprise: The B-24 was the more survivable bomber!

I initially assumed that the B-17's poorer performance could be attributed to its earlier arrival - many B-17s were lost when they tried to fly into the fangs of the Luftwaffe without fighter escort, after all.

However, even when only taking into account bomb groups that arrived December 1943 (along with the Mustangs) or later, the B-17 still has the higher losses with B-17: 1.42% vs. B-24%: 1.11%. The percentages mean that you're losing 4 B-17s where you'd have lost only 3 B-24s.

(Since both aircraft carried virtually the same load per sortie, this doesn't change the picture either.)

Highly interesting :-)

I just notice that the 492nd BG probably shouldn't be counted towards the totals as they had extremely heavy losses during "Carpetbagger" (agent dropping) night missions.

http://www.harringtonmuseum.org.uk/801st492nd.htm

As they were a B-24 group, excluding them from the analysis (as they fly a completely different type of mission) would change the balance a bit further in favour of the B-24.


Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

---cut----------------

100th BG (B-17): 8630 sorties, 177 lost in combat
301st BG (B-17): 104 sorties, 1 lost in combat
303rd BG (B-17): 10721 sorties, 165 lost in combat
305th BG (B-17): 9231 sorties, 154 lost in combat
306th BG (B-17): 9614 sorties, 171 lost in combat
351st BG (B-17): 8600 sorties, 124 lost in combat
379th BG (B-17): 10492 sorties, 141 lost in combat
381st BG (B-17): 9035 sorties, 131 lost in combat
384th BG (B-17): 9248 sorties, 159 lost in combat
385th BG (B-17): 8264 sorties, 129 lost in combat
390th BG (B-17): 8725 sorties, 144 lost in combat
398th BG (B-17): 6419 sorties, 58 lost in combat
401st BG (B-17): 7430 sorties, 95 lost in combat
447th BG (B-17): 7605 sorties, 153 lost in combat
452nd BG (B-17): 7279 sorties, 110 lost in combat
457th BG (B-17): 7086 sorties, 83 lost in combat
91st BG (B-17): 9591 sorties, 197 lost in combat
92nd BG (B-17): 8633 sorties, 154 lost in combat
94th BG (B-17): 8884 sorties, 153 lost in combat
95th BG (B-17): 8903 sorties, 157 lost in combat
96th BG (B-17): 8924 sorties, 189 lost in combat
97th BG (B-17): 247 sorties, 4 lost in combat
389th BG (B-24): 7579 sorties, 116 lost in combat
392nd BG (B-24): 7060 sorties, 127 lost in combat
445th BG (B-24): 7145 sorties, 108 lost in combat
446th BG (B-24): 7259 sorties, 58 lost in combat
448th BG (B-24): 9774 sorties, 101 lost in combat
44th BG (B-24): 8009 sorties, 153 lost in combat
453rd BG (B-24): 6655 sorties, 58 lost in combat
458th BG (B-24): 5759 sorties, 47 lost in combat
466th BG (B-24): 5762 sorties, 47 lost in combat
467th BG (B-24): 5538 sorties, 29 lost in combat
489th BG (B-24): 2998 sorties, 29 lost in combat
491st BG (B-24): 5005 sorties, 47 lost in combat
492nd BG (B-24): 1513 sorties, 51 lost in combat
93rd BG (B-24): 8169 sorties, 100 lost in combat

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
B17 vs B24
« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2006, 05:36:29 PM »
HoHun,

Does that take into account fighter opposition faced?  I would not be surprised if B-17s were used in areas of greater Luftwaffe threat as the USAAF also considered them more survivable.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline SMIDSY

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1248
B17 vs B24
« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2006, 05:57:49 PM »
i always had a fondness for the B-24. though IRL it was not very pilot friendly. i see it as the ideal heavy bomber ingame. heavy bomb load and exelent range. it also seems to have the ability to fly at higher altitude ingame than the flying fortress. i love high alt bombing but i usually fly at around 15K. i like B24s because they attract more fighters than 17s.

Offline Hoarach

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2406
B17 vs B24
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2006, 06:53:49 PM »
17 is better because the b24 will light on fire a lot easier.

Ive noticed only need to take a quick squirt in a 38 and it will light if aim at the engine area.
Fringe
Nose Art
80th FS "Headhunters"

Secret Association of P38 Pilots

Offline hubsonfire

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8658
B17 vs B24
« Reply #8 on: January 13, 2006, 07:07:38 PM »
The B24 does seem to take a bit more damage, except for that tendency to burst into flames.

I like the 17; seems like a better dogfighter.
mook
++Blue Knights++

Proper punctuation and capitalization go a long way towards people paying attention to your posts.  -Stoney
I was wondering why I get ignored so often.  -Hitech

Offline EdXCal

  • Parolee
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 71
B17 vs B24
« Reply #9 on: January 13, 2006, 08:30:19 PM »
I myself have always had a thing for the B-24, I used to work at the yankee airforce here in michgan and they have an old non-flying navy B-24 (Single tail, I can't remember the name) but after getting to stand straight up in the nose of one and seeing how much room there was comparied to the B-17 (which the Yankee Airforce has, it's a B-17G named the Yankee Lady) I just fell in love with it. Though from most pictures I've seen B-17's really did take a hell of alot more damage then B-24s, but pilots seemed to like the B-24's for there longer range and bomb load, but pilots like the B-17s for there ease of handling and there ability to soak up damage.
Now in the game,  between the two I like the B-24 for taking out carrier's and the fact that it's a new model and FM, but the B-17 really does take a huge beating.

Edward

Offline Klum25th

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 327
      • http://www.75thrazgriz.bravehost.com
B17 vs B24
« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2006, 09:39:25 PM »
I'd take a B17 any time any day. I've been shot pretty badley in a B17 a couple of times, and managed to make it home. Like no rudder, 1 elevator, 1 aliron, 3 gunners left, 3 dead engines, tip of wing missing, and just riddle with bullets, and i manage to make it home.

In the B24 i usally catch fire, or get my wing blown off. Though I like the B24 payload better, but id rather take the B17 for survivability.

Offline RAIDER14

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2554
B17 vs B24
« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2006, 09:42:12 PM »
I like the 24 its easy to land with that nose wheel and you can out run some fighters in it

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
B17 vs B24
« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2006, 09:45:03 PM »
B-24 and B-17 both blow up nicely and easily with a good solid burst to the wing root area.  You can easily take out a bomber in one pass if you hit in that area.


ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline Jester

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2753
B17 vs B24
« Reply #13 on: January 13, 2006, 10:46:28 PM »
I was refering to flying here in AH not what happened in Real Life. In Real Life Bombers flew in formations of hundreds - lot harder to get to.

I have flown in Luftwaffe Squads flying against them in the AvA and Events and the B-24, IMO, is easier to shoot down if you know how to do it. In AH here, with it's thinner wing it will fold with a few well placed cannon shots where the B-17 will go on flying.

Forget fuselage shots unless you are doing a "Head-On" attack then aim at the pilots.

Article I wrote on the subject of "Busting Bombers":

http://www.geocities.com/jg54green/Manual_Sturmjager.html

:aok
Lt. JESTER
VF-10 "GRIM REAPERS"

WEBSITE:  www.VF10.org

Offline the Lazy ace

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 66
B17 vs B24
« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2006, 11:41:46 PM »
great article man, but i gotta admit if enough people read this my bomber stratagy aint gonna last long