Hardest plane to take down in WW2?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by 'Lil'tyger

fighter:P-47..ground attack:IL-2..bomber:B-24..carrier:F6F..

How was the B-24 more tougher to take down a B-17?

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Because there are too many variables when u look at it that way Elvis.... Total sortie losses could be from anything, mishap/malfunction/internment....

True, but look at the question - "Hardest plane to take down in WW2"
I suppose we could figure out "Malfunction not caused by enemy interaction" and remove that quotient, but otherwise, once you're down...well, you're DOWN, regardless of how the plane was taken down.

The question didn't ask how, only which one.

Looking at it that way, I still think total production vs. total sorties, minus "malfunction not caused by enemy interaction", is going to give you your answer.



Elvis

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Nikademus

I think too the estimate might be influenced by the fact that the Fortress was there from the start and outnumbered the Liberators most of the time. From what i've read of the design specs, the Fortress was of a more conventional low wing design that contributed to tremendous structural strength. This quality is mentioned time and again.

The Liberator on the other hand (from multiple sources including Bergerud, Neillands and Miller) state the plane was less durable due to production techniques that saved time + the Davis wing was less durable though it allowed the B-24 sport it's greater range and canaverous bomb bay.

I agree with everything written here.
There are loads more accounts of B-17's being "beaten to death" and still returning their crews home unscathed (well, for the most part).
The 24 was larger and was meant to be a high altitude bomber, period.
I think most of its loses occurred when it was pressed into a lower level bombing role, such as what happened at Ploesti.
I still say that should've been 26's that went in there, not 24's.

BTW, Consolidated's specialty was building flying boats, such as the PBY (another "tough bird", btw).
This is why the B-24 looks the way it does, with the high mounted wing and the rounded bottom side.

Around here, we have a B-17 and a B-24 fly around and give rides every summer.

Right after they started doing that, I saw them flying together, over my parents house, and you see how the 24 "hung" from its wing, while the 17 "sat" on its wing.



Elvis

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Elvis

I agree with everything written here.
There are loads more accounts of B-17's being "beaten to death" and still returning their crews home unscathed (well, for the most part).
The 24 was larger and was meant to be a high altitude bomber, period.

Both were designed to be high altitude bombers. The standard mission profile, however, had B-17s operating at 24-28000 and B-24s at 22,000. By all accounts the 24 was hard enough to fly a good tight formation relative to a B-17 at any altitude but nearly impossible at 24,000 plus. Every B-24 driver I ever met had forearms the size of Popeye becuae of the control force workouts.

I think most of its loses occurred when it was pressed into a lower level bombing role, such as what happened at Ploesti.

Offhand, can you recall any other low altitude raid other than the August 43 soiree?

I still say that should've been 26's that went in there, not 24's.

I would agree that the B-26 had a well deserved reputation for toughness

The discussion about 'toughness' is awfully prone to subjective observations due to the fact that so many variables are involved. If you compare loss to sorties for example between a C-47 (which most often did not fly into heavily defended areas) and a B-17 - would you conclude the Gooney was 'tougher'?
just because the loss rate was lower.

Or try to compare the B-26 to B-17 when they didn't really operate in a comparable threat environment.. (26 at medium altitudes, not facing nearly the same LW reaction, not bombing heavily defended targets in Germany, etc)

If you try to compare B-17 to B-24, wouldn't you have to narrow the statistical sample down to equivalent mission profiles day after day for a lot of ops to start drawing some conclusions based on facts? Even if you carved out just 1944/ETO you would have to ask some questions.

Did the B-24s attract more attention that B-17s because they operated typically at 2000-4000 feet lower altitude where a Fw 190 performed better? Or did the B-24 lose more to flak for the same reason - that flak is more effective (intuitively) at 22K than 26K.

Operationally can one prove that over time the one bomb division of B-24s attacked consistently heavier or lighter defended targets than either or both of the two bomb divisions of B-17s in the 8th AF? How did it work for 12th and 15th?

I'm screwing around comparing ops achievements versus losses for the 8th AF FC variants (P-47, P-51 and P-3.

I can easily prove that the P-51 had better air award to air loss ratios than both the other types... but the 56th which flew 47s the entire time is very close to the top..as one 'blip' in statistical conclusions!

I can prove that the P-51 losses to flak were about the same in aggregate to the P-38 for the time they operated together but now it's a little tougher to draw conclusions.. the 38 outfits were nowhere near as 'effective' in attacking German airfields from either numbers attacked or German a/c destroyed - but I think they shot up more trains (not sure yet).

The heavy lifters in that period of co-existance (12/43-9/44) on shooting up airfields were 355th, 4th, 352nd...starting in March, 1944... but how do you draw conclusions that P-47s had lower vulnerabilty in this time frame?

During this time the Jug was only shooting up airfields in France, Holland, Western Germany whereas P-51s were around Munich and Berlin. Taking a hit that might not be fatal for 20 miles but fatal in 400 (slow oil leak, losing manifold pressure down to dangerous level, fuel leak, etc)

BUT all the D-DAY/Normandy campaign stuff in the France area were largely Area Patrols at low level, often with boms - so the 8th AF looked a lot like 9th AF for three months from June through August.. lots of time near random flak batteries versus concentrated airfield flak

So drawing conclusions still very tough

BTW, Consolidated's specialty was building flying boats, such as the PBY (another "tough bird", btw).
This is why the B-24 looks the way it does, with the high mounted wing and the rounded bottom side.

Elvis - I suspect the primary reason was the longer bomb bay (than B-17) with roller bay doors to decrease drag (and enable ground loading of bombs) - combined with reducing complexity of main spar carry through design - combined with desire for tri-cycle landing gear - were more influential than the PBY design. Airframe structure over rides a lot of other factors because of weight considerations

PBY, after all, needed high wing to keep engines dry - whereas the 24 had no such requirement...

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by drgondog

PBY, after all, needed high wing to keep engines dry - whereas the 24 had no such requirement...

Yes, but that's what they built.
They had all the tooling setup for building an airplane with a high mounted wing.
Placing the wing in a different spot, may require a change in tooling or (possibly) acquisition of different tooling.
Why go to all that trouble when where the wing is placed (i.e. high or low) would not seem to make that much of a difference.

...but hey, I got that info from The History Channel.
Go yell at them if you have a problem it.




Elvis

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Elvis

Yes, but that's what they built.
They had all the tooling setup for building an airplane with a high mounted wing.
Placing the wing in a different spot, may require a change in tooling or (possibly) acquisition of different tooling.
Why go to all that trouble when where the wing is placed (i.e. high or low) would not seem to make that much of a difference.

...but hey, I got that info from The History Channel.
Go yell at them if you have a problem it.




Elvis

Elvis - by that logic the B-36 would have used the same tooling and high wing because Consolidated had 'residual' tooling left over from B-24 line? Or perhaps the B-36 used some PBY tooling?

Every airframe with significant design differences was planned with unique and specific tooling design - particularly when the lines changed, as well as using a separate line or even factory.

Would you speculate that the P-51H used the same tooling as the P-51D because they were both Mustangs, or maybe the F-84 used same tooling as P-47 because they were low wing and built at Republic?

There was far more commonality between the P-51H and P-82 than between the P-51H and P-51D. IIRC there were about six parts that were common between the D and H... yet they kinda look the same.

Can you name one part, assy or installation that was common between PBY and B-24?.. and given that dilemma think of one common process, stamping tool, machine set up or jig/fixture that might remotely be the same?

I love watching the History Channel but probably catch a significant error at about one per 2 or three minutes of broadcast on airplane subjects. It is fun to watch but be careful of what you take away as gospel.

[renrich]

My rule of thumb when watching any TV is that if you see it on TV it is either inaccurate or a damned lie. I would be very surprised if the looks of the B24 had much if anything to do with earlier flying boat design by Consolidated. One interesting fact(I use the word advisedly) about the B24 was related to me by a fellow who flew them. He said that an advantage they had over the B17 was that they could lose altitude very quickly(because of the Davis wing) after bombs away to throw off the flak.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by renrich

My rule of thumb when watching any TV is that if you see it on TV it is either inaccurate or a damned lie. I would be very surprised if the looks of the B24 had much if anything to do with earlier flying boat design by Consolidated. One interesting fact(I use the word advisedly) about the B24 was related to me by a fellow who flew them. He said that an advantage they had over the B17 was that they could lose altitude very quickly(because of the Davis wing) after bombs away to throw off the flak.

LOL - on the other hand the 17 drivers loved flying with B-24's because they always flew 4,000 feet lower and were more frequently picked on by fighters... and the 24 was faster coming in but slower going out after both ships dropped their loads.

[therritn]

For land based fighters: P-47 Thunderbolt
Attack: IL-2 Sturmovik
Bombers: B-17 Flying Fortress
Carrier Aircraft: F-4U Corsair

[Ramirezzz]

I don't know if this airplane was already mentioned in this tread ,but the Fw-189 was one of the most hardest air targets for soviet fighters - very agile and rugged. It was a reconnaissance plane, so it doesn't fit in any category of this pool (altough AFAIK it was also a ground- attack version as well)

[kool kitty89]

The Fw-189 didn't have much crew armour though, did it? Though alot of recon and patrol a/c had somewhat poor crew protection, even many PBY's had mediocre crew protection iirc. Though most had good defensive armaments...

[Ramirezzz]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

The Fw-189 didn't have much crew armour though, did it? Though alot of recon and patrol a/c had somewhat poor crew protection, even many PBY's had mediocre crew protection iirc.

no , it didn't - but that was not its main defensive measure, but rather its incredible agility and the overall ruggedness. It could take 3 or 4 fighters attacking simultaneously to shoot it down.

[comiso90]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

The Fw-189 didn't have much crew armour though, did it? Though alot of recon and patrol a/c had somewhat poor crew protection, even many PBY's had mediocre crew protection iirc. Though most had good defensive armaments...

Wiki:


Survivors

One Fw 189 survives today. Its story starts when on May 4 1943 Fw 189 V7+1H (werke Nr. 2100) based at Pontsalenjoki took off on a mission to photograph the Loukhi-3 airbase from an altitude of 6,000 m (20,000 ft), then to continue north along the Murmansk-Leningrad railway. Approximately 31 minutes after taking off V7+1H was attacked by Soviet Hawker Hurricane fighters. The aircraft nose dived to escape the fighters but owing to damage already suffered could not pull out in time and struck the treetops. The tail was torn off, and the crew nacelle left hanging upside down within the trees. The pilot, Lothar Mothes, survived but one crewman had been killed in the crash and the second died from loss of blood as a result of a severed leg. Incredibly, the pilot was able to survive two weeks in sub-zero temperatures, evading Russian patrols while eating bark and grubs as he walked back to his base. Lothar Mothes spent the next nine months in a hospital recovering from severe frostbite before returning to the front lines to eventually fly another 100 missions.

In 1991, the wreckage of V7+1H was found in the Russian forest where it had remained for 48 years. The aircraft was purchased by a group of British aircraft enthusiasts and was shipped to the UK, arriving in the town of Worthing, West Sussex in March 1992. The "Focke Wulf 189 Restoration Society" was formed to restore the aircraft to flying condition. Her pilot met up again with his aircraft in 1996 at Biggin Hill airshow.

[Elvis]

renrich & drgndog,

Re: TV.

Agreed....and might I add, Wikipedia can also fall into that catagory, in the sense that the info is can be constantly altered by whoever views whatever subject they're looking at.




Elvis

[comiso90]

Originally Posted by Elvis

renrich & drgndog,

Re: TV.

Agreed....and might I add, Wikipedia can also fall into that catagory, in the sense that the info is can be constantly altered by whoever views whatever subject they're looking at.
Elvis

Like it or not, Wiki is not a bad resource... it is a easy target for pseudo experts but at worst it is a catalyst for conversation..

Experts rate Wikipedia's accuracy higher than non-experts


.