B-17 v B-24

Discussion in 'The War In The Air' started by Peter Clare, Apr 8, 2006.

  1. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    The CAF seem to do a lot to maintain the publics interest in WW2 by their flying collection of aircraft. I seem to remember that they are flying a B29 FIFI.
    I believe you are right. I have never seen that B-29 but do think I remember seeing that name on one on the Internet. I have seen the Enola Gay at the Smithsonian. Flying a B-29 was like being in a five star hotel compared to the bucket of bolts the B-17 and B-24s were. Pressurized cabins, roomy temperature controled. Quite a contrast to what the boys in the ETO had to fly going up to high altitude. I have to assume the Wellingtons and Halifaxes were also as uncomfortable to fly at altitude. I can't imagine how miserable it must have been to be a waist gunner on those things with the gun port open having to shoot at fast moving aircraft while keeping your oxygen mask in place and bumping in to the other gunner.

    Reading the book called "wing dings" written by a B-17 tail gunner, he told what it was like flying at high altitude. He said one time he had to take a leak and used his helmet. He said it froze to his helmet the minute it hit. He also said that if you kicked off your Oxygen mask connection that you could die from hypoxia before you even realized it. They had heated suits but would sometimes get shorts in them and have to peel them off. Then when you factor in the fact that the Germans are trying to kill you, it makes for quite an experience.

    I was thinking just the other day about the differences in US pilots and their counterparts in the other nations. The US was lucky in that it had sufficient numbers of trained pilots for the war. The US pilots got to switch to a training job or go stateside after so many missions. But the British, German pilots had to finish the war. This is why some of them ended up with 300+ kills. But they had usually been shot down about 15 times too. I bet the bomber pilots in the RAF really resented the fact that the Americans had a "light at the end of the tunnel" hope when they were flying and do 20, 25, and 35 missions. They knew if that even if they didn't die that their war would be over soon. It must have sucked. But you had to figure that pilots that fought the rest of the war must have become pretty good. Especially the RAF pilots since they were not being captured or killed as much as the German pilots so they had a pretty long tenure.

    Of course some of the US pilots (usually only fighter pilots) re-upped for multiple tours. I know Chuck Yeager served several tours.

    I wonder which pilot flew the most missions for the Allies. Do you happen to know that detail?
     
  2. Gibbo

    Gibbo Senior Member

    RAF Bomber Command did have a tour system, with aircrews being sent for a rest after 30 missions. However, they had to fly 2 tours before being permanently taken off operations. This system wasn't introduced until some time into the war so early war bomber crews could have flown more than 60 missions & some volunteered to fly additional tours. I think that the number of missions was also increased late in the war as casualties decreased. My understanding is that for fighter aircrew the tour length was determined by time served in the front line & that for Coastal Command was based on hours rather than missions flown.

    I don't know what the RAF bomber aircrew record was but the following is taken from the Wikipedia entry on Guy Gibson, leader of the original Dambusters.

    'After receiving his VC Gibson wrote an account of the raids, Enemy Coast Ahead and was sent on a lecture tour of the United States by the government, partly to keep the new hero safe. The tour was at a time "when the first American airmen were coming home 'tour expired' after 25 operations. During questions one young lady asked `Wing commander Gibson, how many operations have you been on over Germany?' 'One hundred and seventy-four.' There was a stunned silence." [From Sir Robert Thompson's autobiography Make for the Hills].'

    Presumably Gibson flew at least 175, since he was later killed in action after insisting on returning to operations.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Gibson

    According to the Guinness Book of Air Facts and Feats, the world record for a bomber pilot is 658 by Major Hans-Georg Bachter of the Luftwaffe

    I don't know what the record for fighter pilots is, but I think that the most experienced RAF pilots flew about 500 missions. However, in the 1941-4 period, a lot of these might not have encountered the enemy as the bulk of the Luftwaffe was on the Eastern Front or in Germany. The leading German fighter pilots would, I think, have flown over 1,000 missions, with a higher proportion including combat than for the British.
     
  3. kfz

    kfz Very Senior Member

    Getting away from the personal issues I just think its hard to justify 13 men (??) for the sake of such a small bomb load A result of the B17 small racked bomb bay. You think by the end of the war a Mosquito was carrying much the same load and risking only 2 men. but then 1935 and 1945 where a long time apart the design brief on thr B-17 written when the gun turret was thought an adequate defence against fighters and the accuracy of high altitude bombing so good and effective only a small bomb load sufficent.

    Kev
     
  4. Peter Clare

    Peter Clare Very Senior Member

    Martin,

    A tour of operations on Coastal Command was 18 months or 800 hours which ever came first.

    Regards
    Peter.
     
  5. Pte1643

    Pte1643 Member

    by the end of the war a Mosquito was carrying much the same load and risking only 2 men.

    And one of the best things about the "Mossie" is that, for the most part, it was actually faster than the fighters that were trying to shoot it down.:cool:
     
  6. Kitty

    Kitty Very Senior Member

    The only other bird in the sky that the Mossie feard was the German 'Butcherbird'. The only way a Mossie could outrun one was to hit the deck, where it's two engines could outrun it's one, but at any other altitude the Butcher was faster and more manouevrable. Taken into account it was usually a single mossy against several butchers, and you tend to have a kill on your hands.
    The bomber mark of Mossy could carry up to 4000lb of bombs, 2000 in the bay, and a 1000 under each wing. the fighter-bomber would carry 2000lb in the bay, and the fighter/PRU none at all to make it faster.
    As to tours of duty, it averaged 30, except for a period in 41 (i think) when it was lengthened to 35-40 to fulfill BC's demands when we were losing crews at a staggering amount to the flak witches.
    On average two tours were made, but most crews volunteered to return as they couldn't stand back training others when their friends were still active. Hence the high ops numbers. Also take into account that an ops was only listed if the bombs were dropped on a target. If they had to return before hitting the target, or were called back, it was not counted. So many crews did more flights over enemy territory than the standard 30/35.
    As to the choice of B-17 or the B24? You'll never get me away from my three of Mossy-Wimpy-Lanc. Sorry boys.
    Kitty
     
  7. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    I'm a big fan of both planes but I suppose the Liberator gets my vote purely on a cosmetic basis. The Fortress, I think could take a lot more punshment though. The Naval version of the Liberator the Privateer is another beautiful plane! :cowboy_125:
     
  8. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    Quite a contrast to what the boys in the ETO had to fly going up to high altitude. I have to assume the Wellingtons and Halifaxes were also as uncomfortable to fly at altitude.

    Since both were fabric covered then it must have been hellish. I know that there were heated Sidcot suits but they were not very effective.

    Something sprung to mind while starting this posting. In the RAF, 90 squadron crews were not allowed to eat baked beans before high altitude sorties!:) :)

    Something else, I remeber the CO of my old ATC sqdn who had flown as a flight engineer on Libs telling me that part of his job was to kick the nose wheel down before landing!!
     
  9. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    Flying a B-29 was like being in a five star hotel compared to the bucket of bolts the B-17 and B-24s were. Pressurized cabins, roomy temperature controled.

    Think of it, being able to wear shirt sleeves rather than all that fur lined suits! Must have been delightful.
     
  10. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

    Think of it, being able to wear shirt sleeves rather than all that fur lined suits! Must have been delightful.

    Without a doubt...look at the photos of the crew of "Enola Gay." They wore forerunners of the modern flight suit. At least one guy is wearing the prototypical baseball team cap. Whether it's the Brooklyn Dodgers or Boston Red Sox I don't know. They seem more comfortable than the heavily-laden guys mounting up their Lancasters and B-17s over Europe.
     
  11. plant-pilot

    plant-pilot Senior Member

    Think of it, being able to wear shirt sleeves rather than all that fur lined suits! Must have been delightful.

    Until something went wrong. Loss of presurization, failure of skin or heating meanih serious loss of temprature at altitude. Not as comfortable then.... or do you abort the mission because the heater failed? :mellow:
     
  12. jhor9

    jhor9 WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    I lean towards the liberator. Purely down to it's versatility, used successfully all across the world in a variety of roles, not really a claim the b17 could make as it's star only really shone in Europe.
    Both nice looking beasts but it's quite hard to beat a polished aluminium b24 for a touch of class.
    (Does anyone know if it's true that the etymology of the word 'crate' for aircraft comes from b17 crews reffering to b24's as "the crate that ours came in"?.)

    You can give statistics showing that the B24 had it all over the B17, but when it came to flying them in combat I'll take the B17 any time. When I was flying I would rather have B24s along with us then have fighter escort, because the enemy would go after the 24s because they were easier to shoot down. B17s flew much tighter formation, more concentrated fire power, also the Germans were interested in score.

    During my tour flak was much worse then fighters
     
  13. Gnomey

    Gnomey World Travelling Doctor

    Welcome to the forum jhor9. I would tend to agree with you that the B-17 is more rugget than the -24, the Davis wing in particular was weak. Interesting point about rather having B-24's along instead of fighters, wouldn't you rather have had both?
     
  14. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    Until something went wrong. Loss of presurization, failure of skin or heating meanih serious loss of temprature at altitude. Not as comfortable then.... or do you abort the mission because the heater failed? :mellow:

    But since they all carried their normal flying kit in the aircraft then they would have the chance to change, normally before entering the combat area!

    As for aborting if teh heater failed, then that i suppose depends on the altitude they were flying at. At 30, 000 ft the in rush of cold air would have been almost fatal.

    But in say that, there weas the case where the the german ships on teh channel dash were not spotted earlier because the Wellingto tasked to carryout a patrol RTU'd because they had run out of coffee!
     
  15. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    Until something went wrong. Loss of presurization, failure of skin or heating meanih serious loss of temprature at altitude. Not as comfortable then.... or do you abort the mission because the heater failed? :mellow:
    I wouldn't think that would happen in flight very often. Usually if you lose pressurization you can tell on climbout. I wouldn't think a single B-29 would make that big of a difference so I would bet they would drop out and return. But again, I would think it would be a rare occurance. Of course the enemy cutting holes in your aircraft would do it but I think you can seal off sections just like the compartments on a ship.
     
  16. Peter Clare

    Peter Clare Very Senior Member

    Hi All,

    Many thanks for all that have posted on the subject of the B-17 v the B-24. I believe it has now run its course, but, I cannot resist one last plug in favour of the B-24.

    Of all WWII aircraft none was produced in larger numbers than the B-24 Liberator, nor flown on combat and transport missions on more operational fronts over a longer time span, it appeared in the many versions dictated by operational requirements which were vastly different in different war theaters.
    In the latter part of the war, the longer range of the B-24 brought the decision by the US, to concentrate their B-24 Liberator operations in the South Pacific, replacing all B-17s.

    The Liberator's use in RAF Coastal Command is another story.

    Once again, many thanks

    Peter Clare.
     
  17. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    If there were no favourites it would be a boring world.
     
  18. jhor9

    jhor9 WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Hi All,

    Many thanks for all that have posted on the subject of the B-17 v the B-24. I believe it has now run its course, but, I cannot resist one last plug in favour of the B-24.

    Of all WWII aircraft none was produced in larger numbers than the B-24 Liberator, nor flown on combat and transport missions on more operational fronts over a longer time span, it appeared in the many versions dictated by operational requirements which were vastly different in different war theaters.
    In the latter part of the war, the longer range of the B-24 brought the decision by the US, to concentrate their B-24 Liberator operations in the South Pacific, replacing all B-17s.

    The Liberator's use in RAF Coastal Command is another story.

    Once again, many thanks

    Peter Clare.

    Peter
    Sitting in an office and considering winning a war I would also favor the B24, longer range greater bomb load and faster. But if you personally had to fly missions and had a choice, the B17 would always be first choice, because you would have a greater chance of surviving.
     
  19. jhor9

    jhor9 WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Interesting. I will pass that on to my buddy. Unfortunately his dad died about two years ago. Right before he died he took him to the Smithsonian and he got to see the Enola Gay. His dad got a real kick out of seeing another B-29.

    About every two years we get the Confederate Air Force to come through and they have a B-17 and a B-24 they land and display at the local airport and sell tickets to see it. Strangely enough I have never been. I did see them while out at the airport practicing landings a couple of years ago but didn't have the time to go visit it. You can take a ride in it for about $250 (I think). They use the proceeds to go to restoring aircraft.

    I think that you might be mistaken about the CAF. The Collings Foundation flies the B24 and B17 around the country 9 months of each year, The B24 is only plane of its kind that still flies ,There are about 10-12 B17s that fly. They visit 3 airports in my vicinity, for the last 15 years I stay by the B17 and act as a docent answerering questions, if I can. This year the price to fly in either of them was $400, a B25 was along it's price was $325
     
  20. jhor9

    jhor9 WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    After reading all the posts on this thread i would like to make some comments, since I was there. I flew 50 missions from July 43 to Feb 44. in B17s. I flew from Tunis, N.Africa and Foggia, Italy

    At 25000 feet the temp was -50--60F. without oxygen a person might last 30 seconds, there were several walk around bottles that had about 5-8 minutes of O2. To paint a picture--- We didn't have electrically heated flying suits until later. On a typical high altitude mission in the target area I had sweat on my brow , condensation from my O2 mask dripping
    would give me about an inch of ice on my chest, from the top of my thighs to the tip of my toes , complete numbnss, I operated the rudders from my brain not from my feet, no feeling.

    During my timeframe crews in the UK flew 25 missions, in my thaeter it was 50. Granted, overall missions were tougher in the UK, but we were always very short of planes and crews. Later in mid 1944 the UK crews flew 35 and the crews in Italy had many twofers (targets beyond a certain point were credited as two missins, so those crews averaged about 35 flights. My group flew to Ploesti 10 times , the most important and best defended target in the ETO, my group also flew to Berlin

    During 1943 targets in the UK were hit by hundreds of planes, from N.Africa we were lucky if we had 50 planes over a target.
    These were differences that pretty well equalized the differences.

    Re B29 My tent mate went to B29s after a leave stateside. He flew from Saipan, on about his 18th mission he was shot dowm over Tokyo, he was KIA. I have a copy of his detailed diary, from that and from others, I would like to make to make some observations.--- The plane was under powered, many times they would have to be feathered between takeoff and return. The long overwater flights took its toll of planes that couldn't get back to . One of the reasons for the invasion of Iwo Jima was to get their airfield, Iwo was about the half way point to japan. Also the planes had fierce opposition from jap planes over their homeland. An Irving (jap plane) got my tentmate
     

Share This Page