Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I have read Ambrose and don't remember him quoting anybody about carrying 3 tons or more. I do remember them saying they had a hard time lifting off the runway. We could identify B24 fields in Italy by the shattered treetops off the ends of their runways. The B-24 had a Davis, high-speed wing, which when translated, means it wasn't efficient at low speeds, meaning takeoffs and climbing to targets. They wallowed a lot, unstable, in formation unless more power was used, which meant using more fuel than the mission planners wanted to. The nose of a B-24 "hunted," to quote my own pilot, and didn't want to stay on a fixed heading. The trim had to be adjusted every few minutes, and pilots joked about developing a huge left arm from all the wrestling they did with the yoke. When our crew was switched to B17s our pilots were the happiest people you ever saw.
Especially that story about the left arm stuck with me (it's on p 77)
Please remember that this author, sadly now deceased, was the one who in an earliier book called the ball turret a "plastic bubble." Some bubble! Over 1200 pounds and the only plastic was in the author's head. In the earlier book about the war in Europe he went on for many pages about the 8th AF, but presented nary a word about the 12th and 15th AFs. I suspect that a friend of McGovern went to him and suggested that a book like "The Wild Blue" would be a good way to make amends. The author's idea of writing history was to interview 50 or so veterans and take the most sparkling comments for his book. Among historians that technique may sell books, but it's not necessarily the best way to write history. Those who flew in both planes, including me, will tell you that a B-17's stamdard load was 3 tons. When the B-24 groups couldn't achieve their assigned altitudes carrying that weight, they were ordered to carry 2 1/2 tons so they could at least reach 25,000 feet. Variations from the 3 ton and 2 1/2-ton figures are caused by having to load frag clusters or incendiaries, which were more bulky. The B-24s were unstable and hard to trim out, according to my own pilots. When Gen. Doolittle refused to take any more B-24s in the 8th AF, many crews, like mine, were shifted to B-17s. That made everybody in our crew, including the pilots, happy as clams.Especially that story about the left arm stuck with me (it's on p 77)
On p 23 it is stated that the B-24's bombload was 8800 lbs while that of the B-17 was 3 tons. On p. 79 ceiling is 32,000 feet "and a range of 2,850 miles - all exceeding the B-17's capabilities". On the next page: "it had two bomb bays each of which could match the B-17's single bay for capacity" and "...with improvements the payload rose to 12,800 pounds."
On p 175/176 a bombing mission is described where the maximum takeoff weight of 63,000 lbs was exceeded by 7,000 pounds.
But that's just what the book says. It's not always the most unbiased book ever. The glorification of MacGovern becomes irritating as hell after a while...
Kris
Yeah, I also share the criticism on that book. I suspect he uses the same methods for all of his books. He just goes for the easy stuff, all very black and white.
I'm also sure that it's true that the B-24 wouldn't carry its maximum load all the time. Yet ... on missions were high altitude was not necessary, it could carry more bombs, or carry a similar bomb load a greater distance. That too counts for something I suppose.
Thanks for the input Flakhappy
Kris
You're violating our signature rules. Please be advised that I'm modifying your profile.
Echo this post^^
