Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: the Lazy ace 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
-
b24 for fields,b17 for towns, i think
-
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
-
I am more apprehensive about attacking a B-24 opposed to the -17
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
I like the 24 its easy to land with that nose wheel and you can out run some fighters in it
-
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
-
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
-
great article man, but i gotta admit if enough people read this my bomber stratagy aint gonna last long
-
Tks for the complement Ace.
Yea, at the time I was flying with a Luftwaffe Squad in the CT and it was done mainly for our squadron. Guess now that I am flying Allied I need to quit spreading it around. :D
You starting a Bomber Squad or just flying Buff's individually? I also was CO of a squad flying B-26's - if you need some help with anything drop me a PM.
GOOD LUCK AND GOOD HUNTING! :aok
BTY, Welcome to AH!
-
The lowdown: B24 has better speed at ALL weights, cruise settings, and altitudes, and it carries more bombs, and heavier bombs (2k perfect for hangars).
B24 can cruise at max cruise fairly well at 20k with full load. B17 can't sustain level flight at max cruise at 20k (engines don't produce enough to keep the plane in the air).
Unless you like the b17, the b24 is much more capable in AH.
As for lethality, well.. both are tough. B24s catch on fire easier than b17, but I popped 3x b17s ni a 109E and had 20 rounds of 20mm left afterwards not long ago. Any plane is vulnerable.
-
Hi Karnak,
>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.
Valid concern. It's my impression that the B-17 and B-24 were both used without reservations, but if there had been a period when the B-17s were used to attack Germany while the B-24s were only sent into France, that would of course have skewed the results.
It's my belief that there was no type-specific target assignment for the USAAF bombers, but that's not really a researched conclusion.
(The RAF definitely assigned their less survivable bombers to the more survivable missions as a general rule, so the possibility has to be taken into account.)
It might be that the greater survivability of the B-24 evident from the above figures doesn't actually mean that it is the tougher aircraft, but merely that it flew higher and faster and was not exposed to flak and flighters for the same duration as the B-17.
The B-17 might well have the greater chances of surviving a single attack than the B-24, but if its slower speed meant it was attacked more frequently, the end result might have favoured the B-24 anyway.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I thought the B-24's usually flew lower than the B-17 formations?
-
The B-24 could not keep in the tight formations in thge high altitudes due to poor directional stability and therefore B-24s flew at lower altitudes than the B-17 in Europe. This was fixed in the late models which featured completely redesigned tail surfaces. Overall the B-24 seem to be more capable airframe than the B-17.
gripen
-
My oldman flew B-24s , he is 84. His friend flew B-17s,he is 84. I have heard them argue,in fun,after 60 years about which is better the B24 or the B-17. So I believe the issue will never be decided. The planes were both great and the crews that flew them hold to this day fondness for their respective rides.
-
From Baughers site:
"As early as 1942, the Army had concluded that the Liberator would have better aerodynamic stability if it had a single fin and rudder. However, the Liberator was destined to go through almost its entire career with its original twin fin-and-rudder assembly.
In early 1943, Ford/Willow Run decided to test this assumption of better stability with a single fin and rudder. They modified a B-24D airframe to accommodate a single vertical tail unit taken from a Douglas B-23 Dragon. This aircraft was initially known as B-24ST (where the ST stood for *Single Tail*), and made its first flight on March 6, 1943. Following a change to a C-54 tailplane and a new rudder, the new fuselage was attached to another, later production B-24D airframe (B-24D-40-CO 42-40234). At the same time, it was fitted with more powerful R-1830-75 engines, each developing 1350 hp for takeoff. This airframe was also fitted with the power-operated nose turret that had been installed on later Liberators, while retaining the Consolidated tail turret.
This highly modified aircraft, designated XB-24K, flew on September 9, 1943. Tests revealed that the new tail configuration did indeed greatly improve the stability and handling of the Liberator. An additional benefit was an improvement in the field of fire for the tail gun. As a result of its additional engine power, the XB-24K was 11 mph faster than previous Liberators and had a much improved climb rate.
The results were so encouraging that in April 1944 the Army recommended that all future Liberators be manufactured with single tails. It was planned that the single-tailed Liberator would first appear on the production line with the B-24N version, but the approaching end of the war led to the cancellation of the B-24N contract after only 8 examples had been built. However, the single-tail configuration was later adopted for the PB4Y-2 Privateer. "
gripen
-
Hi Justin,
>I thought the B-24's usually flew lower than the B-17 formations?
Hm, then it comes down to the speed difference entirely. It would be interesting to know how great this difference was in operational terms!
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Gentlemen, use this link (http://www.endorphin.com/stories/bombers_01.php?section=aircraft) and watch the 6 part film on the B-17 and B-24.
Excellent stuff.
My regards,
Widewing