Most Dangerous Position on a Bomber....?

the lancaster kicks ass · 05-03-2004, 01:54 PM

the B-24 was the plane that won us the battle of the atlantic....................

Lightning Guy · 05-03-2004, 02:36 PM

And the most used bomber in the Med., the Pacific, the Aleutians, and, by the way, there were nearly as many Libs built as Forts and Lancs COMBINDED. But for some reason the Lib was never seen as that great a plane by the public. Maybe they didn't like it's looks.

MP-Willow · 05-03-2004, 04:51 PM

Lighting Guy, you have helped some, but the B-24 was just as rugged as the B-17, and if you say that to B-24 crews who were brought home in an all shot up Liberator, they would have words with you.

I will agree that the P-38 was a good fighter that was one of the first who could profive the escourt. And yes the Liberator got less press, but if you like WWII art, there are some great posters and War bonds stuff fore The Libs and Ford's Willow run plant, that was just a great site. The Lib was used in every Theature and proformed with high marks. It's airframe was used for bomber, trasport, and even tanker.

Question how is it that your posts are so high when you just joined?

Lanc, we are agreeing, the Liberator was the deal that helped seal the atlantic, that and the crazy production of the Jeep carriers.

This thread is a little off topic, but that is fine. As for the thought that flack hit alaround, I would have to say that some of the German gunners could put it right up at the cocpit. Some Japonese units used captured or downed Liberators to shadow the formations to give the gunners heading, speed, and altidude. They would stay until the crews realized who it was, a great story about that in a book I read. :P

Lightning Guy · 05-03-2004, 05:34 PM

I post alot, so what? The B-24 may have been as tough as the B-17. Believe it or not I prefer the B-24. I thought we were discussing why the B-24 never achieved the legendary status that the B-17 did (at least in the eyes of the general public). The B-17 was, at least, perceived as being tougher, and that maybe why the B-17 was considered more popular. I happen to know a few B-24 crewmen. One was in the Pacific and his Lib made something like a 600 mile flight back to base sans the tail turret! That's pretty tough.

cheddar cheese · 05-04-2004, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Maybe they didn't like it's looks.

good point, the b-24 was an extremely ugly plane, ugier even than the lancaster

plan_D · 05-04-2004, 06:52 AM

The B-24 could fly further and carry more than the B-17, or was it higher? I can't remember.

Anyway, the B-24 dropped more bombs on Europe than the B-17.

The B-24 wasn't the sole victor of the battle of Atlantic, it could have been won without it. But there is no denying it did an amazing job.

cheddar cheese · 05-04-2004, 06:55 AM

i always thought the normal payload of a b-24 was slightly less than that of a b-17? and i dont think it flew higher either...

plan_D · 05-04-2004, 06:56 AM

That's why there was a question mark on the end...

Lightning Guy · 05-04-2004, 11:04 AM

The B-17 had the higher altitude by a few thousand feet. Generally a B-17 had a maximum load of 9,600lbs while the B-24 could cram 12,800lbs into it's bomb bays. A more typical load would be 5,000lbs for the B-17 (10 x 500lbs) and 6,000lbs for the B-24 (12 x 500lbs). Either way the B-24 was carrying more bombs.

plan_D · 05-04-2004, 11:12 AM

So the B-24 could fly further, and carry more..like I said..before I questioned myself on the height thing.

cheddar cheese · 05-04-2004, 12:39 PM

my sources say the maximum payload for a b-17 was 17,900 for one model (read that from someone on the site, crazy i think

) and that the typical load for a b-17 was 6,000lbs and 5,000lbs for a b-24

plan_D · 05-04-2004, 12:43 PM

I've just read the typical was 6000 lbs for the B-17G...and the B-24G could go 2,400 miles with 5000 lbs...obviously the combat radius would be 1,200 miles.

Lightning Guy · 05-04-2004, 02:19 PM

The 17,600lbs figure for a B-17 could only be used on VERY short range missions. That load was made up of 6x1600lbs in the bomb bay and 2x4000lbs under the wing. Typically the Americans used a load of 8-12 500lb bombs. The bay of the B-24 was designed to carry 12 so I assumed that was the standard load.

plan_D · 05-04-2004, 02:25 PM

The B-17G was a late mark B-17 though but the B-24G was really an early mark of B-24..so it's not really fair to compare the two..although I did...sort of..

MP-Willow · 05-04-2004, 04:21 PM

Lightening Guy, thanks for the help! You are right that the B-24 was not loved by the public, just think the Boeing media machine and a name like "Flying Fortress" was a lot to compeate with. But then the B-24 was a "Liberator" so shows people are fickel.

As for comparison, try the B-24J and B-17G. There you should find that the Lib has the range, speed and payload over the B-17. Normal loads were around 6,000 to 7,000lb a little lighter in the PTO because of the range, but it also would very for target type. B-24s could carry up to 12,000lbs of ordenance for the shorter flights. The bottum line is the B-24 had the range and layload over the B-17. That is why it was used so much in the pacific. Both planes were survivers!

I will try to get better compairison numbers for the two. I used the B-24J because it is a latter model, the G was really a D built by Douglas, I think in '42? The j was also the first to be built by all 5 plants!

Got to love smiles!