B-17 vs. B-24, Why B-24s were sent to easier targets, vulnerability, and unit cost - follow-up video
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 06. 2024
- The video addresses comments on the channels B-17 vs. B-24 comparison video. Additional archival documentation was found which addresses the Bomber range, target selection, vulnerability to battle damage and unit cost. The B-17 vs. B-24 score card was updated reflecting the new evaluation parameters.
- Věda a technologie
These two videos reminded me of a debate my father and his three brothers had on the merits of these two bombers. All three flew in WWII. One was shot down over Germany in a B-17. Fortunately, they were able to make it over Switzerland before bailing out. My father flew the B-24. He was stateside awaiting training for the B-29 when the war ended. My father's take: If given a choice, he'd fly B-24 missions, but in a B-17!
Of the four, my father was the only one who'd flown in both airplanes. That didn't prevent his three older brothers from disagreeing with him! Why let a lack of practical experience prevent you from holding firm opinions?
I bet 99.99% of comments on this video are from people who haven't flown both.
My late uncle Rich was B-24 co-pilot in early 1944. On a mission over southern Germany, his aircraft was hit by heavy flak. While it still appeared flyable to the bomber crews around him, for some strange reason, instead of attempting to abort & return to England, the plane veered off to starboard & left the group. It was last seen heading in the general direction of the Austrian or Italian Alps. To this day, the plane & its crew are still missing. A lot of theories have been discussed about why it headed south, (jammed rudder, heading to an allied air base in Italy?) but we'll probably never know. I'm guessing it's sitting somewhere in the Italian Alps or Dolomites, waiting to be discovered by mountain climbers or hikers. My uncle was 22 when he went missing with his crew.
Easier missions with equal losses (2:33) makes me even more thankful my grandpa (B24 CP) made it back and was able to start a family.
Pop was in B-29s and hated the B-24 because it oscillated/swayed in flight. He thought most others hated it because you weren't allowed to smoke in it due to all the fuel leaks. To include the B-17, he thought it awful to risk 10 guys to carry only 6-8 tons of bombs. His unit had horrible casualties, too, about the same as the ETO, you just died a different way - the plane would kill you. Crazy the thoughts you cling to in order to survive.
B-17 and B-24 bomb loads were pretty comparable. Not sure what he meant by that.
purely anecdotally, it is my understanding that in the Battle of the Atlantic,
the range of the B 24 was much appreciated.
it was, also anecdotally, the aircraft that "closed the gap" in the mid-Atlantic.
There wasn't a lot of flak over the Atlantic nor heavy fighter opposition so the B-24's relative vulnerability wasn't really and issue.
Among other things.
The early range advantage of the B-24 was erased by a mid-43 fuel tank upgrade to the B-17. But by that point, the B-24 was already firming entrenched in that role. Plus the larger fuselage of the B-24 was helpful in some applications, as it allowed it to carry extra cargo and mission specific equipment that would be a tough fit on the 17. I suspect that the U-boat hunting was one of those tasks. Though the B-17 could certainly have handled that role also.
My grandpa would have absolutely loved these last two videos, and is thanking you from the grave for them. B-17 is love, B-17 is life.
...that dropped bombs on people...
And most importantly B-17 is death destroyer of factories
Thank you for all the hard work. Always learn new things here.
The light bomb load range comparison applies to maritime patrol bomber situations, I suppose, which was probably why the B-24 was the one used in this role in the North Atlantic campaign against U-boats.
Not so sure targets like Ploesti were exactly milk runs. The B-24 had its share of difficult targets.
Tidal Wave is the most decorated mission the AF has ever flown. The claim that B-24's got easier targets is simply not true.
@@brianandrew8930 I agree.
So do I....
Early in the war, before they realized how vulnerable it was. As the stats built up, they were assigned easier missions.
@@brianandrew8930 Yes, it is true. That statement comes straight from the USAAF during the war. THEY said this. Not the video author. I know because I have read that report in the past.
Another masterful presentation. Well done, sir!
Appreciate the way you are polite (but firm) in the way that you respond to comments!
My take on the debate is that both planes played an equally valuable role in the war.
I'm not a fan of lists, so don't like saying one is "better" than the other.
A great video. I loved this content. The comparison between the B-17 and 24 was eye-opening. It's a pity that many YT channels don't give similar info to yours.
B-24s were NOT as well designed and had weaker wing boxes. There are a decent number of pictures showing B-24s with their wings folding up and basically snapping off when damaged. Compared to B-17s, they were “death traps”.
it was for mass production like the m4 Sherman tank
@@gordonhall9871 It was a compromised design. If there was a real benefit, we would have just had more b-24s built under license.
Not true, the problem with him using the 8th Air Force data from their early mission's that used mixed B17 and B24 mission's to make a conclusion about survival rates comparing the two are highly problematic, the data is highly skewed because on those mission's the two weren't truly mixed, the B24's flew the notorious "tail end charlie" position because the B17's were a little slower so they were put at the front to set the pace, and B24's flew about 2,000 ft lower which worsened their tail end charlie dilemma, you can even find interviews with German fighter pilots here on CZcams that verify the fact that when they came up against formations like that they swarmed on the B24's at the back and lower because that made them much more vulnerable from not having the interlocking fire from the defensive guns of the B17's working with the B24's, there'd be five or six B17 boxes up front and higher then two B24 boxes at the rear and lower, that's not a good place to get results when making comparisons, and there's something else that skews the information even more, that's the fact that the mixed mission's only happened early on and when fighter's were responsible for the majority of bomber losses, by the time later on when flak was the biggest cause of bomber losses the 8th had already quit flying the mixed mission's, so all that data all comes from a time where fighter's downed the most bombers and the B24's were being put in the worst place they could have been.
Last year I read an article written by a guy who wanted to get to the bottom of whether or not B17's really had a higher survivability rate, as he pointed using the 8th Air Force's statistics from mixed mission's is highly problematic for the reasons already pointed out, which once again is verified by German fighter pilots themselves, as he pointed out when you just use data from bomber commands the exclusively used B24's and commands that exclusively used B17's they had an almost identical survivability rate, and that's something this channels data showed in his last video but he dismissed that saying that data from mixed mission's would be a better comparison, I normally consider this channel to be the gold standard when it comes to information about US bombers in WW2 but I think that's one thing he's gotten wrong, between the reasons explained about why the 8th Air Force mixed formation data is highly skewed along with that being verified by German fighter pilots themselves I'm more inclined to believe the results when they're only compared on a level playing field, ie B24 only commands vs B17 only commands, and there was another point he made in that article, in the Pacific when the tables were turned and it was essentially B17's that were the minority in B24 commands before they switched exclusively to B24's virtually the exact opposite results came out, B17's had a lowerr survivability rate, this would bring one to the conclusion that it wasn't the best way of doing thing's when you had a command set up for one type of bomber and you make another type of bomber operate in it's command, essentially it'd be like the Ukrainians using M1 Abrams and Leopards in the same tank company, the two are better of completely separate for the sake of all procedures and practices.
Note; edited for stupid grammar errors.
@@sorryociffer I'm not aware of license production of any US bombers of the period.
@@dukecraig2402 Not correct at all. The superiority of the B-17 was consistent throughout the war. It wasn't an early war phenomenon. And your claim about the identical loss rates was addressed by both the statistical command and the video. The B-24's flew easier missions. There is wide range of metrics that favor the B-17, and just ignore all of them of obsess over this article that you read somewhere.
I like the looks of the B-24 and they both look great sitting next to each other on the shelf.
A confounding statistic about "bombers that were lost when hit" is that the B-17 had a 35% larger wing area, making it easier to hit in the first place. In other words, a lot of hits on the B-17 would have missed a B-24, skewing this metric somewhat. The B-24 was more sensitive to hits, but less likely to be hit. The area of the critical wing spar structures of the B-17 was a much lower percentage of the total wing area. This is why some B-17s could return with so many holes in the wings, it was more likely that any damage would miss a critical area. A hit in a wing spar would tend to bring either aircraft down, but the B-24 with its longer, more narrow wings, had more spar and less wing area.
Not really. The B-17 significantly more likely to survive battle damage, but it was also more likely to return from the a misdion of similar difficulty. So it wins both metrics.
@@sebclot9478 Have you ever read the book "How to Lie with Statistics"? My point is that some metrics are of little use without being combined with other pertinent information. It annoys me when such statistics are used because they sound good.
For example, A Mosquito Bomber was also more likely to be lost when hit. Nevertheless, it was also more likely to survive a bombing mission deep into Germany. This is because "bombers that were lost when hit" only tells part of the story.
@@jfess1911 Except the B-17 won almost every metric. Even the intangibles, like being easier to fly, more comfortable for the crew, safer bomb bay, better visibility, and and the crews bomber preferences, ALL went to the B-17. There is a big difference between lying with stats and desperately looking for evidence to support your preconception.
And the Mosquito is a horrible analogy. They were completely different classes of aircraft.
@@sebclot9478 re: "And the Mosquito is a horrible analogy. "
Exactly. Some statistics are not very useful. You are arguing about something I never claimed. I never claimed that the B-17 was worse than the B-24, just that a statistic used for embellishment was pointless.
Anyone approaching this subject from the point of view of "fandom" is completely missing the purpose and value of historical research. It is not a ball-game or a popularity contest
I have another reason I like the B-17 over the B-24. When I was a kid I built the old Monogram kits for both birds, and the one for the B-17 just went together so well and looked so good, while the B-24 model was a royal pain in the fanny. So there’s that.
Another fine video. I would love to see some videos on the medium U.S. bombers and the A series aircraft, A-20s and A-26's and their missions if this is of interest to you.
I assume he will eventually get to them
Great presentation.
This info is consistent with the testimony of a customer who had been a B-17 waist gunner. He was glad not to have been in a B-24.
Most interesting. Thanks for posting.
I still love the B-24 more because I think it's more beautiful, but I'm glad people care enough to discuss and debate the two birds.
I agree with you. I find the B-24 more _"aesthetically appeasing."_
Great follow-up video...👍
B-24 is still #1 in my heart! ♥
It was one of the best bombers of the war. Comparing it one on one against the B-17 makes it look worse than it was. If you include all WW2 heavy bombers, it is arguably the second best.
Very well researched. Which begs the question: the B-24 was introduced in 1941, while the B-17 was introduced in 1938, yet there were >12,700 B-17's built and >18,100 B-24's produced. So more 24's in less time. Why? The greater cost of the B-24 is a fact that seems to fly in the face of normal manufacturing wisdom that time = money such that greater numbers in less time generally equates to lower costs. The B-17 was largely withdrawn from Pacific service in 1943. The received wisdom is that this was due to range considerations. Is it possible that the withdrawal of the B-17 from Pacific theater use had more to do with the demand in the ETO for all B-17 production rather than range issues?
the b-17 was introduced in 1935 which makes its performance all the more impressive.
@thurin84 I believe it was developed in 1935. It was introduced later. By that metric the B-24 was developed earlier than 1941 as well.
Ford's system of production was top notch producing B-24s in a war economy environment - perhaps it was better than Boeing's? Production line perfection was Ford's game after all.
@@charlespolk5221 yes, both were a product of their times when aviation technology was advancing rapidly.
@@nightjarflyingFord set up their production line for the B-24 in the same way as their cars. Which allowed to produce them in large numbers in a short amount of time. Boeing, along with the other aircraft manufacturers, did in the traditional style which is why they produced less aircraft.
Ya I'm only a B-24 fan because that plane brought my father home all 35 missions he flew over northern Italy, nazi Germany, Austria, the Balkins and southern France. That plane is the reason I'm able to write this comment today and no amount of statistics or matrix can underscore that.
Thank you Consolidated from all my heart
I have this feeling you have no clue how statistics work...
Where are the Balkins situated, by the way?
The B-24 wasn't crap by any means. It just looks bad when compared directly to the B-17. That is more about the B-17 being awesome than the B-24 being bad. That point is lost on some people here.
Great info and research.
I have not looked at the numbers, but i suspect the naval versions of the B-24 were preferred due to their greater range which was due to less defensive armament and bomb payload. On the other hand, the Liberator was a bigger bitch in a ditching...
The navy flew heavy bombers?
@@Milkmans_Son The Privateer was a patrol version of the B-24.
@@Milkmans_Son Technically no; they flew B-24s and their derivatives PB4Y-1s and PB4Y-2s as patrol bombers.
@@Milkmans_Son yes.
@@grizwoldphantasia5005It was derived from the B-24 but it was a completely different plane… look at the rudder(s)
B24 is the crate the B17 came in.
Unknown
I felt like the big missing factor in the first video was the cost to produce run. (Reasonable enough to make a less capable plane if its cheaper to produce).
Kinda shocking that the b24 ended up MORE expensive than the b17
That higher cost would normally equate to a higher dollar profit at the same profit margin.
I wonder if that played any part 🤔🤔
Surely not 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
It could be because the B-24 production methods, more like a car assembly line, meant that upgrades had to be included in refits after the planes were already built? A bit expensive vs just incorporating them into the production line.
@@mkaustralia7136 No. The B-24 was the newer aircraft and when the war began, it was reasonably thought that it was the superior aircraft. It just didn't turn out that way.
@@sebclot9478 But they knew reasonably early on that it was inferior and needed to be sent on easy targets. Why keep building them? Or why so many?
@@mkaustralia7136 Because that is wrong. They didn't know reasonably early.
Really interesting. The greater production of B-24s is fascinating given it's recognized deficiencies. The greater industrial capacity devoted to it explains the numbers, but not the why, other than they needed to make up the numbers that were lost in order to keep those unit's strength up. I always "knew" the B-17 was the iconic aircraft of the American air campaign in Europe this really helps explain why in quantifiable ways.
It's pretty obvious why - the deficiencies of the B-24 were not great enough to force a switch of production to the B-17. The switch would have cut production totals, would have cost tens of millions of dollars in retraining, retooling & reduced sales of bombers. That is why it makes sense to upgrade existing war machines rather than replacing them with new models. This use of common sense & love of profit beat the Nazis who should also have followed a costs approach rather than running a top down fantasy war. E.g. Ford's giant Willow Run plant in Michigan, was built to use the "Ford Production System", they built one four-engine Liberator an hour, and by the end of the war a total of 8,700 were delivered from Willow Run alone. Try turning that ship around to make the B-17 - it simply isn't happening.
Well, they didn't know at the time. The B-24 was the newer aircraft by 4 years and the assumption that it would be the superior aircraft wasn't unrealistic. It just didn't turn out that way. By the time they figured it out, changing over production would have caused more problems in the long run than it solved.
The USA demonstrated the ability to retool quite quickly, although that would still have been of the order of months. If the B-24 had been terrible, it would have been changed unless an alternative role had been found. That it wasn't suggests that the difference in performance was slim enough that losing production wasn't considered worth it. How much worse something needs to be to make it worth foregoing production to change the item produced is another matter, and not a constant throughout WW2.
@@wbertie2604 It's not just retooling. Assembly lines become more efficient over time as they master the product they are working on. Time to complete a B-24 dropped dramatically over the coarse of the war.
Retooling not only meant down time for the retooling, but once the line was back up, it would take months to master production of the new aircraft. Initial B-17 output would have been much lower than B-24 output for that reason.
Great stuff!
Thanks for these verifying stats.
Thanks. Sounds like the highest wing loading & Davis wing of the B-24 was a good idea until the amount of defensive armament ... and expected bomb loads went up. The extra weight made induced drag shoot up. The nose turrets screwed up the stability.
So: a) 12,000 + 18,000 B-17's beats b) 12,000 B-17's + 18,000 B-24's. Option b) still beats c) only the 12,000 B-17's and no other heavies
The only advantages the B-24 had were: 1) a bit higher speed at some altitudes, and 2) ?? more room for future development. It would be interesting to fast forward to late 1945 without the B-29 or 32. Would the B-24 N models be superior to a B-17G-plus?
You really go fangs out on the B-24, huh? Love the fact based research. Always Interesting videos, keep it up
He lives in Washington and was an aerospace engineer. So, you figure it out the common denominator
But his characterization really is accurate, though. I have read many of those reports too. The B-17 just seems to sweep everything. It's more a case of "the B-17 is F*****g awesome than the "the B-24 is bad". If this comparison was opened up to all heavies of world war 2, the B-24 would be a legit candidate for the second best.
Didn't the b24 solve the submarine problem, where the mid atlantic hiding place of surfaced German subs could not be reached by any aircraft except a lightly loaded b24?
The maritime patrol B-24 models were the PB4Y-1. They were modified as long range patrol aircraft. They incorporated bomb bay fuel tanks, removed high altitude systems, and some other equipment to extend their range. The video focuses on the B-24s adopted as strategic bombing platforms attacking targets over the Reich, like the B-24s flying with the 2nd bomb division in the 8th air force.
I understand there were more B24s in the war than B17s. I wonder why, if the B17 was better and cheaper. Someone was getting kickbacks from Consolidated?
It isn't efficient to switch horses - the differences weren't large enough for entire plants to go off line for six months to change their production! What use is it to Ford to switch from B-24s to B-17s if they're spending fortunes to retool & retrain while shipping no product. WWII was won by industry - extra aircrew deaths are irrelevant if one can keep on pounding the Axis night & day non-stop, That's what matters, not the small efficiency differences in the tools used to do the pounding.
Ford was recruited to help build B-24’s and they proceeded to build at them at the rate they built cars back then.
Having diversity avoids the risk of class failures. If it turned out that there was a mission the B-17 couldn't easily fulfill then there is an issue, or if a fault is discovered. For example, the B-24 proved to be an excellent maritime patrol bomber. Having selected for diversity, production requirements will lock that in. It's also about leapfrogging technical developments - B-17, B-24, B-29 - roughly four years between iteration.
The Hurricane was obsolescent in 1940 but was produced until 1944. If production can find a role, then it's more effective to keep producing than retool. Even the Boulton-Paul Defiant was produced for years as it was an effective target tug and the P-39 even got developed into the P-63 as it found a rule under Lend-Lease. The UK built Valentine tanks and sent them to the USSR, and the USA made M4s and sent them to both. In theory, the UK could have made M4s or something else, but in a race for production, making more Valentines made sense.
They didn't know at the time. When the US entered the war, the B-17 was already pretty old. The B-24 had just been introduced. On paper, it looked like the superior plane. It just didn't turn out that way. And by the time they figured it out, changing production would have caused more problems than it solved.
Well, this may very well be true. But,..... My Grandmother worked for Consolidated- Vultee Aircraft Corp during WWII, down in San Diego, down on Pacific Hwy. She was a "Rosie- The -Riveter", so naturally I like those planes more. ( Not really though, I loved all WWII airplanes).
This is one of those debatable debatables. Rather than the B-17 being better. It seems to suck less. And the tactics used sort of color all these statistics here.
I was just an infant during WWII. As I became somewhat familiar with the two bomber types, 17 & 24, the B24 seemed superior. BUT I was aware that the B24 wing was more susceptible to complete failure if hit in any critical area, due to its truss construction.
"OOF."
That is all.
😆
Okay, despite all this, I love me some single-tail Navy version of the B-24 (PB4Y-2 Privateer).
It is interesting to consider, that at least one or two examples of the Privateer remained in very active service as "water-bombers" (firefighter ships using that red clay/foam chemical retardant stuff, not actual water), LONG (like, 4+ decades?) after the numerous B-17s originally used in that role had been retired. But it is ALSO interesting to consider, that I don't think the original short-fuselage twin-tail B-24, was ever used as a firefighter in the first place. AND, the only(?) reason the Privateer was deemed a superior(?) firefighter, was they had been drastically upgraded with B-25 engines. Wright R-2600s (1700 HP) in place of the original 1200-HP P&W R-1830s.
And then, a final "interesting point to consider"... is that the last active Privateer in firefighting service, was not retired, but... well, not exactly "crashed" per se. She actually broke apart at the wing-roots during a retardant-drop run. But to be fair, at least one much newer C-130 also met her end with that same catastrophic structural failure during the same mode in flight.
How about a Avro Lancaster vs Handley Page Halifax comparison? The Halifax gets overlooked and the Lancaster gets most of the glory., Yet in most respects the Halifax appears to be a pretty good match for the Lancaster, especially when it finally got the Hercules engines it was designed for.
WWII US Bombers...
The original design was for the Vulture.
@@Milkmans_Son True, but it doesn't exclude a special video or two. If he wanted to.
I think the range claims had more to do with the pre-1943 B-17's, before they got the fuel tank upgrade. There was a period where the B-24 did seem to have longer range.
So after learning that the generals specifically assigned easier missions to B-24s… what happened with Ploesti?
I'm thinking there is some kind of bias in the reports. Something's not adding up here. Ploesti was an easy run?
@@orbitalair2103 Perhaps it took into 1944 to realize the deficiencies of the B-24 and change its mission assignments.
I think it was more comparison of the ETO not the Mediterranean
That was the 9th airforce out of North Africa. They had mostly B-24's
@@sebclot9478 No. There were three 8th AF groups that participated in Tidal Wave. And the mission planners selected the B-24 for the mission specifically because the B-24 had a greater range and could carry a higher bomb load than the B-17. This video has clearly cherry-picked some unusual documents.
An an earlier video, you calculated the combined loss ratio of US B-17s and B-24s to Luftwaffe fighters to be 0.85 US heavy bomber to 1 Luftwaffe fighter as estimated by the 8th USAAF.
Would you then conclude that a fair update to that loss ration would be 0.94 Luftwaffe fighter per each B-17, and 0.76 Luftwaffe fighter for each B-24? (that would give B-17s a 22 % survival edge over the B-24).
My question is this: Given the apparent range advantage for the B-24 earlier in the war, and its use in the PTO (particularly in the SW Pacific), what was the effect of logistical inertia in that theater in regard to switching to the superior late war B-17? In other words, since those units already used the B-24, wouldn’t have been easier just to leave them that way rather than change to a whole new type of bomber?
Pretty much. By the time the superiority of the B-17 became apparent, which was basically in 1944, switching the assembly lines over would have been a BIG task. Remember, it isn't just retooling the lines. Assembly lines become more efficient over time as workers fine tune the process. Those B-24 lines by that point were super efficient and kicking out bombers like crazy. In addition to weeks long shutdowns needed for retooling, that whole process would have had to start over and the newly retooled B-17 lines would have been much slower to produce planes while they got everything dialed in. Getting back up to speed would have taken months.
@@sebclot9478All excellent observations, though my query had to do with the perhaps less obvious matter of training and resupplying ground and air crews in the far flung SW PTO. In other words, even had the proper birds been available and the switch possible, would it have been worth it by mid-1944, especially with the B-29 on the way?
@@David-ic4by In PTO, I'm not sure it would have been. You have a point there. It probably would have been in Europe, though.
It is important to understand that the decision to build the B-24 was based on pre-war performance numbers and comparison to the pre-war B-17. In 1939, the B-24 indeed had significantly better performance (faster, higher, better bomb load) than the contemporary B-17. The B-17 was an earlier design, but Boeing did an excellent job improving it so that by mid 1943, it exceeded the B-24's performance in many respects. Nevertheless, it was only in 1943 when modifications increased the bomb load to above 4,200 lbs added 1080 gallon "Tokyo tanks" to the B-17 which turned it into a truly long-range, heavy(er) bomber.
To put this in context, many other aircraft improved markedly over their pre-war status. For example, look at the performance of the pre-war Mustang model (built for the British) versus the late-war P-51B, C, and D. Pre-war, few would have guessed that a medium-range, medium and low altitude fighter would become such a good long-range, high altitude fighter.
That’s not quite correct. The pre-F models maxed out 4800 lbs if I’m remembering correctly. But it was definitely more than 4200.
@@sebclot9478 I got the 4,200 lb number from the B-17E "My Gal Sal" data at the Museum of WWII. It was sponsored by Boeing, so I suspect it is correct for that particular plane. The numbers may have varied among the earlier variants.
@@jfess1911 B-17 and B-24 bomb loads are horribly misreported in both secondary and tertiary sources. Even sources that should know better typically get them wrong. That said, 4200 is pretty good compared to some numbers that get tossed around. Here are the max loads straight from the E manual, dated October 22, 1941:
4800 lbs (8 x 600)
4400 lbs (4 x 1100)
4200 lbs (14 x 300)
4000 lbs (2 x 2000)
The F and G saw lots of mix and match loads that weren't listed in any of the documentation, so this is likely not an all inclusive list.
It's possible that 4200 was the max before the 1100 lbs and 600 bombs were introduced. That might be the source of the 4200 number. All B-17 variants prior to the E appear to have the same bomb bay limits. So at some point, 4200 may well have been the max, but it probably would have been on an earlier variant.
@@jfess1911 Other than the slightly off bomb load figure, you pretty much hit the nail on the head.
The only thing I would add was all the intangible advantages the B-17 had that were only discovered or appreciated in combat. They were all things that were difficult to test for in peacetime. The resilience to battle damage, easier to fly both normally, in formation, and with damage, the better crew comfort, the lack of leaking fumes in the fuselage that plagued the B-24, the bomb bay doors that would hold a man (a BIG deal if you fell off that catwalk in the bomb bay), lower accident rate, better crash and ditching characteristics, better bombing accuracy. The list goes on and on. I don't anyone expected the B-17 to just sweep the list of intangibles the way it did.
@@sebclot9478 Good point. In the late 1930's, when the B-24 was designed and committed to mass production, pretty much only range, bombload, and speed at altitude.were the criteria. Despite quibbling on bomb loadout, the B-24 looked much better then... on paper. There was no experience with high altitude bombing over a well defended target.
Few would have imagined the advancements the advancements in aircraft and anti-aircraft tech that was to occur.
The question now is - why did the army air corps keep the B-24 around and build so many? If it was worse in every aspect and even slightly more expensive - wouldn't there have been some sort of government inquiry? Or an alternate design proposed (lie the B-32 dominator as a back-up B-29) Also - are these figures comparing things at the right time - in 1943 how would a B-24 compare to B-17 E/F rather than a G? And What about British Bombers.
I have a nostalgia bias for the B-24 - back in the early 90s when I was eight or nine, One of the last flying B-24s visited a local airport and my grandfather took me to see it, I even got to go on a walk-through. It seemed really big to me as a child. Felt a lot smaller when I saw a B-24 after college.
The USAAF thought the B-24 was the better bomber. It just didn’t turn out that way. The B-24 did have advantages over the early B-17’s that were erased by B-17 upgrades. And finally, it’s easy to get the impression from this video that the B-24 was bad. It wasn’t. The B-17 was just awesome. The comparison makes the B-24 look worse than it really is.
I got to fly in a B-17 once.It was the thrill of a lifetime for me.
What was it like?
Please compare B17 to the Lancaster
Spoiler, B-17 still wins......mostly.
B17 fan here, but there's one thing that I think favored the 17 in those stats and that is the mountain range that the 15th AF had to clear on their way to and from Germany. The 8th AF operating out of Britain was made up primarily of B17s, whereas the 15th operating from Foggia, Italy was mostly B24s. The Dinaric Alps of Yugoslavia were an obstacle to contend with if your B24 was struggling to get over, be it full of bombs on the way to a target or crippled and trying to get back 'home.'
Not really. They cruised at 20,000 to 25,000 feet, which is well above the highest peak. Clearing the Dinaric Alps was no issue. There might have been a few examples of crippled bombers who had issues on the return leg, but if you were forced that low by battle damage by the time you reached the Alps, the odds of reaching your bases in North Africa were pretty darn poor already.
@@sebclot9478 they were still an obstacle that the 8th didnt have to contend with. I think they would prefer to ditch in the Adriatic if they could. A B17 navigator I talked to mentioned those mountains. He and his fellow crew ended up bailing out in those mountains, were helped by Partisans. His squadron was based in Italy, not North Africa.
@@orcstr8d Well being based in Italy later on made it even easier. Now you don't have to fly over the Mediterranean. But in the end, the 8th Air Force B-24's were at the same disadvantage compared to the B-17 as their Mediterranean based counterparts. So I don't see impacting this evaluation in any meaningful way.
Didn’t the B-24s start dropping the ball turrets during the summer of 44 to increase bomb load?
Do any of these stats include this or have you come across any data with this?
B-17’s later in the war also did not use the ball or chin turrets.
I thought the Chin turrets were a late addition. Were they removed later?
Some B-24 groups removed them.
@@DL541 I have never heard that. B-24's, yes. But I have never run across any reports of B-17's doing this.
@@user-it7lf7kk8m late 1944 yes, they took the chin turrets and belly turrets off on several B-17's.
Very interesting. I was always under the impression that the B24 had a superior range. Maybe that myth grew from the usage in the atlantic gap where much smaller bomb loads would be used (anti ship or anti submarine) and possibly less armament would be needed as they were operating beyond the range of Most enemy aircraft
A revelation, as always.
My understanding is that they did have longer range until the B-17 received a fuel tank upgrade in 1943.
Couple of questions...
How many of the 18K+ B-24s went to other Allied air forces?
Did those air forces have the ability to provide fighter escort for their B-24s?
5th Air force in the pacific did.
On looks, I prefer the Lancaster.
Lancaster is a good looking bomber. I still prefer the look of the B-17, but the Lancaster is a close second.
I wonder if a twin tailplane makes an aircraft more vulnerable to battle damage, possibly losing control more easily?
The twin tail did affect handling. So there may be something to your theory.
Very interesting, discouraging but interesting. (I'm the son of a B-24 crewman.)
I wonder why the navy went with the PB4Y? Even just based on how difficult the b24 was to fly.
Because they didn't have to fly close formation, which is where the worse handling actually showed up in practice, and because using a PB4Y for something where it was adequate meant you didn't have to take a B-17 from where it was needed more.
@@harryspeakup8452 they built 12000 b17s. Ya think thatd be enough to go around especially since RAF didnt use a lot of fortresses. Maybe it was to justify willow run
Why was the B24 used for Maritime patrol in the Atlantic?
Probably because it was what was available (most maritime aircraft were). The very long range version or PB4Y definitely played a huge part in the defeat of the U-boats.
Because they didn't want to use it for anything else? 😊
Well, what was the typical bomb load for maritime patrols?
@@Milkmans_SonA lot smaller than what would be used for strategic bombing.
B-24 did have a longer range when they were first adopted for this role. B-17 fuel tank upgrades erased that advantage in 1943. Larger fuselage might have been advantageous for addition specialized equipment too.
The B-26 laughs. I have two engines less, but I got to fight in three wars.
And when the wars were done, I spent 20 years on forest fire suppression missions...
It begs the question... If the B-17 was better in every way then when were B-24s favovered in production? Like was it political or where they just faster to produce or had more contractors who were in step competition?
Early on, the USAAF thought the B-24, which was the newer aircraft, would be the better aircraft. Experience along with B-17 upgrades proved this assumption to be incorrect. But by that point, retooling assembly lines for the new aircraft would have caused more issues than they solved. Remember, the B-24 wasn’t bad. It just wasn’t as good as the B17.
I still like the b24 better as my grandfather was a top turret in one
Jimmy Stewart probably knew this,
Thank you for making a followup video!
What was the goal then of the b24 if it did not exceed the b17 in capability for the cost? Maybe like the b26, some exigency of war forced some changes or removals of intended improvements? Could the fact that there are inherent cost inefficiencies to building factories, jigs, and tooling for these in a relatively short period of time, compared to the established production of b17s over so many years, have changed the balance of this factor? Do you believe it would have been better to produce more b17s instead with the same resources?
when people decide to build a plane they don't decide "ok, we need to make it better than this but shittier than this". They make a plane and then it shows what it is.
@@rinkashikachimore like it's human & design error more than simple as fuck about build better than whom while ate shitty.
Because they thought it was better. Imagine having a choice between two cars. You choose the one you think is the better car. Two years later, you realize that you made the wrong choice. It was just like that.
I am confused? Why was the B24 selected for the Ploiești Raid? As I understand, it was because B24 had greater range? also more MoN we presenter for this air raid than any other during WW2? Easy missions????
The bombing groups in North Africa were mostly B-24. Plus the B-24 had the longer range at the time. The B-17 with the Tokyo tank upgrade, which is where it leapfrogged the B-24 on range, wasn't widely deployed at the time of Operation Tidal Wave. The statement that the B-24 flew easier missions came straight from a USAAF report at the time. I know because I have read the report in the past.
My grandpa loved flying his B-24 took him through 28 missions on the 29th it had three engines shot out they all bailed and made it and the plane crash landed on its own with all but one engine feathered showing its durability. The 24 and 17 were not put on different missions due to difficulty many large bombing missions had them both involved. If you look up losses between the 17 and 24 they are similar
Yes, the B-17 was flying more dangerous missions. That info came straight from a period USAAF evaluation. I don't know if that was intentional or random chance, but it is a fact.
The table shown onscreen at 1:35 of the video contains an error. The maximum internal GP bomb loads are:
B-29 = 40 x 500 lb GP bombs (20,000 lbs total)
B-17 = 6 x 1,000 lb GP or 12 x 500 lb GP bombs (6,000 lbs total)
B-24 = 4 x 2,000 lb GP or 8 x 1,000 lb GP bombs (8,000 lbs total)
The B-29 and B-17 have the correct values but the B-24 has an incorrect figure of 5,000 lbs instead of.the proper 8,000 lbs. This mistake has affected the calculations in the other columns, e.g. Bombload per Group (Tons) should show 192 for the B-24, not 120.
IIRC, he briefly discussed this in the prior video. The B-24 could hold more bombs than the B-17, but it was quickly learned that the B-24 was unsafe when carrying more than a 5,000 lb bomb load. When fully loaded, too many B-24s crashed on take-off or soon there after. The plane was difficult to fly under the best circumstances. Flight characteristics quickly deteriorated as the plane's total weight increased. Above 5,000 lbs of bombs, too many pilots lacked the skill to recover if the slightest thing went wrong.
You are forgetting that this is an official document. They likely aren't mistakes.
@@DKWalser That makes sense.
But I'm not sure B-24 could carry more bombs than the B-17, even under the most ideal conditions. The B-17 could carry a crap ton of bombs if they really wanted to load it up. The maximum officially listed B-17 GP configuration I have seen was 14,000 lbs, which is a lot. It did require using the two external hard points, though.
@@sebclot9478 Incorrect. Mistakes happen aa the time --- but these are usually typos and misprints, a not uncommon occurrence in the days long before electronic publishing. That 5,000 was put in rather than 8,000 was likely a typo --- but that incorrect figure was used in the calculations.
That 8,000 lbs is the B-24 internal GP maximum is easily verified by looking at the aircraft's flight and maintenance manuals.
@@primmakinsofis614 I have never run into a typo on that kind of data. And the other guy mentioned that they started limiting them to 5,000 lbs. I can't confirm that at the the moment, but it seems plausible to me.
And I don't need to look at the manual. I already know it could do 4x2000 internally.
I find this articles conclusions surprising, as all information I have previously encountered indicated that' B24 could fly farther, faster, and with a larger bomb load. Its vulnerability to combat damage was obvious. However, had I been a bomber crew man, I would probably have preferred to be in a B17.😊
The reason it is surprising is the poor performance of secondary and tertiary sources on the issue.. The primary source have always painted this picture.
Plus some of these claims were partially true. The B-24 initially had a range and bomb load advantage over all models prior to the F. The upgrades to the F erased the bomb load advantage, and a mid-F upgrade to the fuel tanks in mid 1943 erased the range advantage.
As for speed, I have seen a few bomber pilots make this claim, which is where I think it came from, but none of the test data supports it. The B-24's most economical cruise speed is about 10 mph faster than the B-17's most economical cruise, so maybe that is where that claim came from. But the B-17 was faster at max cruise, so I guess it depends on application.
And for altitude, the B-17 flew higher in combat, so I have no idea where this came from. Maybe the earlier versions had a higher max ceiling than the older models? I have never explored this question too closely. So I'm not really sure.
It's such a shame that we built so many B24s instead of the obviously superior B17. It's almost like the B24 had some significant advantages that get completely overlooked by WWII fanboys who's introduction to WWII strategic bombing was in movies or mini-series.
It takes a long time to tool up a plant to build a complex machine like these. I suspect that had the B-17’s superiority been known ahead of time, the military wouldn’t have committed the resources to B-24 production. I think it was probably a case of not knowing the combat performance picture until well after the point of committing the resources to build both.
guess not, there's nothing in this world are perfect nor best.
@@turdferguson4124 Interesting point, except for the fact that the plusses and minuses of each aircraft were well known before they started tooling up factories like Willow Run
@@turdferguson4124 That is exactly what happened.
@@peterallen4605 No, not really. The B-24 was a much newer design and thought to be superior at the time of the US entry into the war. The B-17 superiority didn't really assert itself until 1944. By then it was too late to retool.
So why did they send in B-24 to Ploesti? Suicide.
Random guess: They didn't have anything else available at that time?
@@randomnickifyyeah, sending flying fortress, that would be neither of them was return, try being 100th Death group while no escort.
(I like to see you both fan are fight over each others)
I don't think the B-17 had the range for Ploiesti at that point. That was right before the fuel tank upgrade that allowed it to leapfrog the B-24 range. Plus the 9th Air Force was mostly B-24's.
We got too cocky B-24 bros... Its over...
So, raw data doesnt lie😏. But im tall, so i choose B-24 because is more spacious and comfortable😏😁, so i can stand normally inside😁.
More episodes about bombers equipment please, im very curious about this matter.
Yes, but the table shown onscreen at 1:35 contains an error. It lists the B-24 as having an internal bomb capacity of 5,000 lbs. The correct value is *8,000* lbs. This error throws off the calculations in the other columns.
It was more specious, yes. But not more comfortable.
Say it again: the VLR II Liberator had incredible endurance and help close the mid Atlantic convoy ‘air gap’ that U-boats took advantage of.
The maritime patrol B-24 models were the PB4Y-1. They were modified as long range patrol aircraft. They incorporated bomb bay fuel tanks, removed high altitude systems, and some other equipment to extend their range. The video focuses on the B-24s adopted as strategic bombing platforms attacking targets over the Reich, like the B-24s flying with the 2nd bomb division in the 8th air force.
@@WWIIUSBombers Thanks. Forgive me for my defense of the B-24. It was inferior to the B-17 in all of your listed categories.
But, for nautical endurance, I think it was unsurpassed.
@@williamashbless7904 They probably could have done those mods to the B-17 too. Though one big advantage of the B-24 was more space in the fuselage. So carrying some U-boat specific equipment might have been easier.
It's important to remember that these videos aren't meant to attack the B-24. It only looks bad in comparison to the B-17, which was arguably the best bomber of the war. But it was arguably the second best heavy bomber and certainly top 3. There is no shame there.
@@WWIIUSBombers surely that's just the USA maritime models? Many B-24s were operated by RAF coastal Command and I thought some of those were just straight B-24s apart from UK equipment, and in the middle period this included power nose and tail turrets with 303s. Later, power waist positions with 50s too.
@@sebclot9478 RAF coastal Command operated both B-17s and B-24s but sought to modify B-24s not B-17s for long range, relegating B-17s to more coastal operations. To be fair, the number of aircraft wasn't huge, but if it had been easy to extend the range of the B-17 easily, it would have been tried more. Certainly, the UK wasn't fairly unimpressed by the Fortress I (although fitting a toilet might have helped the bomb bay issues) and pushed many to shorter range maritime work and hadn't yet received B-24s so definitely had an interest in range extension.
You knocked the Liberator down before but the fanboys pissed you off. So you delivered a coup de grâce.
Comparisons as these are problematic. The B26 had a superior loss rate/sortie… was it a better bomber than the B17? Moreover designs were constantly upgraded not only by model A.B etc. but also by block and by each manufacturer. For instance compare the range of the B17 with Tokyo tanks, to the B24 VLR, the VLR is the winner.
The B17 had 4 to 5 years to mature than the B24. Between 1935 and 1940, the science of semi monocoque design became more exact. In airplane structures, the idea is meet requirements with minimal weight. The B17, being an earlier design was overbuilt and consequently damage tolerant. A situation where ignorance produced a virtue.
The B24 must have something going for it. Something like 5000 more were built than B17s. B24s were used as transports, tankers, anti submarine etc, etc. The N and K models were revving up for production when the war ended. The B17s development ended with the G (early ‘44). (However the B29 may have had something to do with this)
I agree with the premise the ‘17 was a better bird for Europe than the B24. But, on the other hand, George Kenney, 5th Air Force (SWPA), wanted B24s not B17s.
The B24VLRs in ‘43 closed the Greenland gap to Uboats. Arguably the most important contribution of a single aircraft type to the European theatre. Had it not done so there would have been no bombs to drop, gas to burn, or food to the UK. Britain and USSR would have folded. Cheers
Thank you for both these detailed comparisons. Given that the B-24 was the most widely produced warplane in WWII, and possibly ever, why did the US purchase so many of a more expensive but less capable bombers? Also, can you please expound on the role of the B-24 in the VLR ASW role? I know the B-17 range advantage didn't kick in until the Tokyo tanks were added so I imagine that's part of it.
They didn't know it was less capable. We have the benefit of hindsight. Early on, the newer B-24 was expected to be superior. It just didn't play out that way.
Actually, they DID know. As the video points out, the USAAF assigned B-24s to less heavily defended targets, and did so with enough calibration such that both forces had roughly equal losses. The USAAF also surely knew the range and payload curves for both bombers, as well as the unit price and expected service life. We know some additional things in more careful retrospect, but enough key factors were known at the time.
@@davidnewcomb9306 No. They did not know until 1944. They may have suspected in 1943, but you still have to test it. You might resort a few missions based on such a suspicion, but you aren't going retool entire factories based on that.
Remember, they thought the B-24 was the better bomber for most of 1942 and 1943. They could have been wrong about the B-17 too. The reliable data didn't come in until 1944.
In a nutshell, the B-24 was better in just about every 'technical' category (e.g. range, top speed, bomb load, etc.). On the topic or category of crew survivability, that's where the B-17 really shines - and as a result, will probably always win the B-17 vs. B-24 debate.
Actually, that’s not really accurate either. Range, top speed, and bomb load were were all pretty close to each other.
@@sebclot9478 And yet the B-17 was phased out of use in the Pacific Theater of operations in favor of the B-24 by 1943 by the USAAF; not to mention the US Navy adopted a 'navy version' of the B-24 (PB4Y-2 Privateer) - and not so with the B-17 - for a plane (the B-24) that was notoriously inferior for water ditching... Then there is the fact that Winston Churchill had a B-24 (not a B-17) as his personal transport. None of this adds up to the claim that the B-17 was equal (if not better) in all performance metrics to the B-24. Personally, I've *ALWAYS* liked the B-17 more than the B-24 - but when people claim the B-24 was *at best* equal to the B-17, I smell bullshit.
@@TyroneSayWTF I hate to tell you this pilgrim, but the data supporting those fact are pretty overwhelming. Original source documents for both planes abound. So if you stopped depending on secondary and tertiary sources and went to the source data yourself, you wouldn't have to guess now, would you? But lets address your main question. Why did they choose the B-24?
But first I want to address Churchill. If the RAF had the data that the USAAF had in 1944, there is no way they ferry him around in a B-24. The B-17 was more survivable in every way and had the lowest accident rate of any USAAF combat aircraft. Not just bombers. ANY combat aircraft. Which included the B-29, B-24, B-25, B-26, A-20, A-26, A-36, P-38, P-39, P-40, P-47, and P-51. And the fatal accident rate was even lower.
But why was the B-24 chosen initially by all parties?
The B-24 was 4 years newer. And at that point in time, tech was moving so fast that a 4 year edge was an eternity. So it was assumed that the B-24 would be better for that reason. Most of the advantages held by the B-17 were discovered later in actual use and were unknown at the time, or were added with upgrades and later variants.
This assumption that the B-24 would be superior was not entirely unjustified. From it's introduction in 1941 until about mid-1943, the B-24 did have longer range. It also had a larger bomb load until the B-17F entered service in very early 1943.
The problem was the B-17 received upgrades, and by mid-1943 was the superior bomber. From that point on, it was all B-17. But prior to that point, the B-24 did have advantages. Particularly range. And it was during that period that most of the decisions you mentioned were made.
The British situation was slightly different. They initially received very early B-17's, C or D models which where nowhere near as effective as the F and G models that the USAAF would later deploy. So the B-24 appeared to have an even bigger advantage to them.
@@sebclot9478 Well, it appears we agree on one thing, i.e. for *at least* a period of time (that is, *some window of time*) during the war, the B-24 was considered a better all-around bomber/utility aircraft by BOTH the USN and USAAF (in the PTO) - despite its less-than-stellar water ditching reputation in a theater of operations that was all about water being everywhere. Also, I'm pretty confident that the acquisition and evaluation boards of BOTH the USN and USAAF (in the PTO) made their decisions based on tested and measured performance metrics (instead of simply which 'aircraft was newer') - because otherwise, that would be gross incompetence.
Is it possible that the B-17's performance significantly improved over the B-24 *AFTER* the USN and USAAF (in the PTO) evaluation period? At this time, I can't completely rule it out - but I find it somewhat hard to believe - but I don't dismiss it out of hand either.
So, there you have it; I'm gonna leave it that.
@@TyroneSayWTF OK, I think someone is having difficulty with the topic here. I never said it was chosen because it was newer. I said people thought it would be the better aircraft because it was newer. Imagine if we went to war right now. Which fighter do think would be superior. The Super Hornet, or the F-35? Most people would say the F-35. It's newer design with latest technology. Same thing in 1941 with these two. The B-24 was newer and looked better on paper.
But this was deceiving, in large part because the B-17 turned out to almost universally superior in categories, which I will call intangibles, that are hard to measure. Being the aircraft with the lowest accident rate in the entire USAAF inventory and having half the fatal accident rate of the B-24 is great example of an advantage that was not foreseen. So was being the more survivable combat aircraft, and being easier to fly in combat formations, or easier to fly in general, or easier to fly when damaged, or not having fuel fume issues in the fuselage, or being more reliable and easier to maintain, or not having crew fall to their death if they fell off the bomb bay catwalk, or more accurate bombing, or being better liked by crews......the list does on and on. The B-17 damn near swept every intangible category, which is something that NOBODY saw coming in 1941.
Then two of few actual B-24 advantages were wiped off the map by B-17 upgrades in 1943, and the result is the B-17 opening up a truckload of whoop-ass on the B-24 by 1944.
The only issue by this point was that the industrial road map was already firmly in place and transitioning to the B-17 would have been more trouble than it was worth. If they known these things in 1941 or 1942, they probably would have gone all B-17, but hindsight is 20/20.
It's worth highlighting that the B-24 was not bad bomber or bad aircraft. It just compared unfavorably to the B-17. Which is more about the B-17 being F*****g awesome than about the B-24 shortcomings.
Comment
"B-24 fans may want to take a pass on this video"
Me: Okay, catch you on the next one.
I feel personally attacked
Are you offended😅?
@@Turloghannah, you get offered too, even you're not one of the liberatidiotor fan in oil field but 100th death squadron group or flying dickress fan were send be cannon fodder is one a joyful news to be heard.
more precisely, i like to see you guys and both fans are fighting each others. 🎉🎉😂😂
The B17 was problematic. I like the British Mosquito concept. Why waste weight with all those men and guns?
I have no idea what documents you are relying upon for these claims. What I do know is that the 8th AF sent only B-24 groups to fly the Tidal Wave mission specifically because of the B-24 had a longer range than the B-17. The B-17 could not fly the 2,100 miles from Benghazi to Ploiesti and back. Moreover, the bomb loads for the B-24s on Tidal Wave ranged from 3600 - 4200 pounds, which at those loads and according to your single document should have caused the B-24 to have a shorter range than the B-17. From the after action report on the mission: "All five of the heavy bombardment groups slated for the operation were equipped with B-24D's, selected instead of B-17's because they alone were capable of flying the requisite distance with a sufficient load of fuel and bombs successfully to perform the mission."
He is relying on USAAF documents. And he is correct. The B-24 had a range advantage from its 1941 introduction until a mid 1943 fuel tank upgrade. At the time of operation tidal wave, the B-24 was the longer range bomber.
Ultimate scorecard is the number built. The Army Air Force obviously felt the B-24 was the better bomber as they bought far more of them.
They did think that, but they were wrong. A fact that their own reports make pretty clear. But there are issues retooling assembly lines mid-war. You have to weight the cost of shutting down the line for a few months vs just going with a somewhat inferior aircraft. I think they made the right choice, but if they had known in advance, they would have built more B-17's.
@@sebclot9478 Nope, They made more B24s because it was the more capable aircraft. Need to patrol for U-boats out in the North Atlantic? B17 can't do that. Need to bomb the underbelly of Europe from bases in North Africa? B17 can't do that. Need to fly missions across long distances in the Pacific Theatre? B17 was withdrawn from these missions in favor of the B24.
B24 was a wayyyyyyyyyyyyy better looking aircraft
The B17 was problematic. I like the British Mosquito concept. Why waste weight with all those men and guns?