tough b17s

[rshubert]

Originally posted by frank3
That's what I said right?

No, you said "chassis", and airplanes have "fuselages" and "wings" and 'empennages', but no "chassis", unless you count the radio gear.

The wing was from the Coronado flying boat, but the fuselage was a completely new design.

[ergRTC]

I have read (mcgoverns accounts) that the b24 flew lower than the b17 by several thousand feet.  If I remember right.

[HoHun]

Hi Frank,

>>The B-17 losses were 1.64% per sortie.
>>The B-24 losses were 1.21% per sortie.

>The B-24 is more survivable because of .43% difference?

The percentages mean that you're losing 4 B-17s where you'd have lost only 3 B-24s.

That's a noticable difference, but not as big as between Stirling, Halifax and Lancaster for example - they were roughly 4:2:1.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi Guppy,

>Interesting figures, HoHun... were there any breakdowns of which targets each group struck?

Unfortunately not! It's my impression that B-17s and B-24s were mostly used interchangably by the 8th Air Force, but I haven't got any numbers to confirm this.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[john9001]

because target selection could affect losses that could skew the numbers, the % of losses is a moot point.
too many factors involved, distance to target,num of bombers,num of escorts, num +type of defenders, num of flack, date of attack(early war-late war).

[davidpt40]

The B17 dropped more tonnage of bombs in WW2 than any other aircraft.

The B17 had a higher top speed than the B24, but the B24 had a higher cruising speed.

[HoHun]

Hi John,

>because target selection could affect losses that could skew the numbers, the % of losses is a moot point.

I'm looking at the entire 8th Air Force there, and I've never seen any evidence that the B-24s were pampered and assigned the milk run missions. If you have, bring it up, but if you don't, consider the 33% higher vulnerability of the B-17 a fact.

>too many factors involved, distance to target,num of bombers,num of escorts, num +type of defenders, num of flack, date of attack(early war-late war).

I've covered the early/late difference, and as time was the one factor that determined the rest of them, you have no point (unless you bring the evidence the B-24 was typically sent on milk runs).

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[devious]

In AH, a nice 30mm will NOT stop the tailgunner from firing on, with every other possible gun helping.

Simplest way to kill buffs is to shoot off a wing. 2 30mm will suffice plus he`s spiralling down having to manually switch plane, which gives you a free maneuver.

[funkedup]

Originally posted by devious
Simplest way to kill buffs is to shoot off a wing. 2 30mm will suffice

Hmm Franz Stigler told me it was more like ten 30mm.  

[bfreek]

without fighter cover, b17s were dropping like flies.

and lets face the simple fact,  bullets go through thin skin metal aircraft very nicely even if its a/c grade skin.

I'll try and find the UK website illustrating the affect of 30mm and 20mm ammo on lancasters and fighters.

i know it showed 1 30mm hit on a fighter basically obliterating  1/4 the a/c. and 1 30mm hit on a lancaster fuselage opening a garage door size hole in it. also stated average was 3-5 hits to down any bomber .


If anyone knows it please post it . thanks.

[Guppy]

Originally posted by HoHun
It's my impression that B-17s and B-24s were mostly used interchangably by the 8th Air Force, but I haven't got any numbers to confirm this.

Looking at the USAAF Combat Chronology files at http://www.altus.af.mil/History/historycombat.htm, B-24s were dispatched to Berlin alongside B-17s in March '44, which would indeed suggest a lack of "special preference."

A quick skim of December 1943's bombing missions shows that the -17s outnumbered the -24s by about 4:1 at the time. The interesting part, however, is that the B-17s appear to have a generally lower loss-to-damage ratio than the B-24s--i.e. for each B-17 lost, more damaged a/c would limp home than in the case of B-24s. (Unfortunately, I haven't had time to run a proper analysis, so can't be definitive about this.)

[frank3]

Originally posted by rshubert
No, you said "chassis", and airplanes have "fuselages" and "wings" and 'empennages', but no "chassis", unless you count the radio gear.

The wing was from the Coronado flying boat, but the fuselage was a completely new design.

well, that's what I meant

[joeblogs]

German fighter strength peaked as the 8th airforce was winding up for the big raids.  It eventually fell as the shortage in avgas worsened and the P51 arrived over targets...

-Blogs

Originally posted by ergRTC
hit anything with 88mm flack and it will fall out of the sky.  

How many were lost due to enemy aircraft vs flak.  That is the important question.  I bet it was very few out of the total.  Not many fighters left by the time the b17 started big raids into germany.

[joeblogs]

Check your manuals, B-17 service ceiling is higher than a B-24.  

B17s entered the war with turbocharged Wright Cyclone engines.  It took some time for the turbocharged Wasps to perform as well...

-Blogs

Originally posted by rshubert
Welll...

The B24 WING was the same design as that used on one of Consolidated's flying boats.  It was known as the "davis" wing.

The B24 was faster because it had more studied aerodynamics and a better wing design for speed.

It also typically bombed from higher altitudes, since it had a higher service ceiling.

[frank3]

yep, B-17 could fly higher, that's true

B-24 had bigger payload + faster

defensive guns where the same tho