Rank the Allied Heavy Bombers 1939 to 1944

[pbfoot]

I believe with the the exception of the RCAF photo survey Lancs which flew til 64 the B24 remained in service til 61 with trhe Indian Af 2 years more then the B17 target drones. The B24 was also were used in clandestine ops and ECM missions

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by seesul

Hey Kris or another mod,

could you change my vote please? I was going to vote for a B-17 and my daughter hit some key and voted for Pe-8. It is her opinion but not mine...
Since I´m 34 years older than she my opinion should be accepted

Thx!

Done. Sorry it took so long. Somehow I missed your post and request. It is changed now though.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by B-17engineer

There is still a chance of an attack from underneath any which way you put it.

Actually I don't think that all mattered that much. At night, the aircraft from below would hardly be visible. Remember you have (moon) light above you. So I think it was justified to leave away the ball turret in a night bomber like the Lanc or Halifax. The turret would be only dead weight, which was better used to carry bombs.

BTW does anyone know how effective this massive armament on the B17/B24 really was? As the USAAF bombers had tremendous losses before real escort fighters appeared, I would say it didn't matter that much, maybe only slightly raising the survivability?

[B-17engineer]

Yes, but I was referring to an earlier post in which Shotround6 said something along the lines of The Lancaster being a daylight bomber it would need the turret, putting it in the same boat as the B-17, lessening bomb load.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by B-17engineer

There is still a chance of an attack from underneath any which way you put it.

Tunnel guns would work.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

I believe with the the exception of the RCAF photo survey Lancs which flew til 64 the B24 remained in service til 61 with trhe Indian Af 2 years more then the B17 target drones. The B24 was also were used in clandestine ops and ECM missions

Consider the economic realities India was in through the mid 60's.

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by Marcel

Actually I don't think that all mattered that much. At night, the aircraft from below would hardly be visible. Remember you have (moon) light above you. So I think it was justified to leave away the ball turret in a night bomber like the Lanc or Halifax. The turret would be only dead weight, which was better used to carry bombs.

BTW does anyone know how effective this massive armament on the B17/B24 really was? As the USAAF bombers had tremendous losses before real escort fighters appeared, I would say it didn't matter that much, maybe only slightly raising the survivability?

A ventral turret on a night bomber was all but useless
trying to peer down into the inky blackness below the aircraft would reveal precisely zero until the nightfighter underneath the bomber opened up - which was usually too late. The Luftwaffe took full advantage of this literal blindspot with Schrage Musik.

As a standalone solution it didn't work, the USAAF daylight bombing campaign would have been in deep trouble without fighter escort. It's worth pointing out that towards the end of the war, the RAF were in almost as much trouble as the USAAF due to the advances in AI; Allied nightfighter escorts saved more than a few bombers from destruction. Unescorted carpet bombing courted heavy losses without a fighter escort, it just took a little longer to get really dangerous at night as well.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by RAF Liberators

Curtiss Electric propellers were on on a very limited number of early B-24's
Yes it disapeared fast because other superior equipment like the B-29 was available and not because there was anything particularly wrong with it. The end of WWII spelt the end of the prop powered bombers (for the most part) and the dawn of the jet age.

The Curtiss electric propellers disapperared because they also had a habit of "running away" causing the engine to overspeed. Because they were electically driven they had no fixed stop. All pitch changes are done through the electic motor connected to gears.

Originally Posted by RAF Liberators

What do you mean by questionable internal systems (fuel transfer valves)? Do you mean the manual transfer pump or something else?

The fuel transfer valves and boost pump were nortoius for leaking on the B-24 and the C-87 and the aircraft commonly were found with leaks in the bomb bay. My uncle was a B-24 FE and later a bombadier and i was told on more than one occasion about the fumes in the cabin and how some aircraft were sometimes flown with the bomb bay doors cracked open. Convair made improvments on the Js and Ms.

[seesul]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Done. Sorry it took so long. Somehow I missed your post and request. It is changed now though.

No prob Kris and thank you!

[seesul]

In some another thread I´ve posted what Willi Reschke told me on my question about his opinion on B-24´s and B-17´s resistivity. He said:'B-24 was not a problem but B-17 was a real hard nut'
And Willi got some 4 engine bombers during his carrier Aces of the Luftwaffe - Willi Reschke

[RAF Liberators]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

The Curtiss electric propellers disapperared because they also had a habit of "running away" causing the engine to overspeed. Because they were electically driven they had no fixed stop. All pitch changes are done through the electic motor connected to gears.
The fuel transfer valves and boost pump were nortoius for leaking on the B-24 and the C-87 and the aircraft commonly were found with leaks in the bomb bay. My uncle was a B-24 FE and later a bombadier and i was told on more than one occasion about the fumes in the cabin and how some aircraft were sometimes flown with the bomb bay doors cracked open. Convair made improvments on the Js and Ms.

Ooooh my Grandfather was also a FE on Libs, I imagine that he was USAAF?
Yeah I heard about the doors being cracked open but was told it was due to the heat (it got hot out in SEA and MTO).
Hey here's an anecdote for you. The 15th AF out in MTO got fresh ice cream made and delivered to them, the RAF came up with a way of making their own. It involved taking the mix up to high altitude in the bomb bay, letting it freeze and then getting back down to Terra Firma double quick time before it melted

[Njaco]

Great story RAF Lib!!

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by RAF Liberators

Ooooh my Grandfather was also a FE on Libs, I imagine that he was USAAF?

Yes - He was training to become a bombadair until he was involved in a plane crash.

My wife's grandfather also flew B-24s

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Marcel

Ah, thanks Glider (throws book out of the window). But things like the Bieleveld viaduct and U-boat pens is another matter I suppose?

And thats when you need the Lancaster with its 12,000lb and 22,000lb bombs.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Marcel

Ah, thanks Glider (throws book out of the window). But things like the Bieleveld viaduct and U-boat pens is another matter I suppose?

And certain ships like the Tirpitz.