Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: bfreek on July 05, 2003, 10:37:34 PM
-
If they were so tough in rl why was the average a/c life only 4 months in combat , average aircrewman 15 combat missions, average ball turret gunners life in combat 12 mins.
how bout gettin rid of this pathetic 30 gun central fire control BS
-
cause all it took was a couple of 30mm slugs to rip a wing off, or kill the entire crew, or disable an engine :p
-
average??
there are lies
there are damm lies
and there are statisticians
if plane A is shot down on 1st mission and plane B flys 30 missions the "average " is 15 missions
so how does a average of 15 missions relate to plane A or B?
-
You didn't go to many stats classes in University did you John?
-
Fortress is tough, we all know that. but that doesn't mean it's invinsible is it? it all came down on the luck of the airmen
-
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.
-
Originally posted by udet
cause all it took was a couple of 30mm slugs to rip a wing off, or kill the entire crew, or disable an engine :p
and one glancing wound from a 30mm to kill a person, easily...or both waist gunners inone shot.
Gainsie
-
Here is a site that might be of interest to some. Change the month and year in the URL to see other stats.
http://hometown.aol.com/jlowry3402/feb45.html
-
With no escorts over target in the first 3 years of the war, it has skewed your "average" or mean data. If the p51D was made in 1940, b17 crews would have stood a better chance at survival.
out
-
Hi Turbo,
>With no escorts over target in the first 3 years of the war, it has skewed your "average" or mean data.
I 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%.
(Since both aircraft carried virtually the same load per sortie, this doesn't change the picture either.)
Highly interesting :-)
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
-
Originally posted by HoHun
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!
The B-24 is more survivable because of .43% difference?
the B-24 was almost the same as the B-17, it only could go faster because it's chassis was designed out of that of a flying boat.
-
Originally posted by frank3
The B-24 is more survivable because of .43% difference?
Well, .43% isn't negligible when your loss rate is between 1% and 2%.
Interesting figures, HoHun... were there any breakdowns of which targets each group struck? It might be useful to see if the B-24s visited Berlin or the Ruhr as often as the B-17s...
-
Originally posted by frank3
The B-24 is more survivable because of .43% difference?
the B-24 was almost the same as the B-17, it only could go faster because it's chassis was designed out of that of a flying boat.
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.
-
Just out of interest, i know there were more b-24's than 17's. But what was the difference between the 2 in sorties, and how many of these were in the ETO for each type?
Thankyou in advance
-
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.
That's what I said right? :confused:
-
Originally posted by frank3
That's what I said right? :confused:
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.
-
I have read (mcgoverns accounts) that the b24 flew lower than the b17 by several thousand feet. If I remember right.
-
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)
-
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)
-
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).
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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. :D
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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 ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
yep, B-17 could fly higher, that's true
B-24 had bigger payload + faster
defensive guns where the same tho