Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Sakai,
I looked only at the ETO bomb group losses on operational flights.
I've to admit the result surprised me, too :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Excellent, thanks. What was your source? While I seem to recall the 17s did suffer in the ETO a higher loss ratio per mission, I also would again note that the 17s were considered to be so tough that they (again from memory here) 1) flew more unescorted missions than did the 24s and 2) the early models did not have the same defensive armaments that the 24s had. If the 17 shouldered the load of the learning curve, then I would expect them to have incurred the greater losses.
Considering the loss of wings due to hits (you never saw a B-24 land with half a wing shot off did you?) that you could not crash land them and use the plane again (and they sank faster in water crashes from what I recall-weak bay doors came right off-but it's been some time for me on this issue), and their notorious penchant for catching fire when hit, and their hydraulics problems, one wonders if simple numbers tells the whole story?
Though their losses were greater, that might reflect the missions entrusted to 17s due to their capacity, no? Or is it your belief that the 24s simply did not have the legendary status of the 17s so while in reality tougher they were not given credit?
The 17 was allegedly easier to fly, that might have influenced a great number of crews to believe in the superiority of their plane and constant retelling of such often gets ascribed as "fact".
Sakai
