B-24 vs B-17....Which was tougher?

Very nicely put mkee. I love both aircraft. I just remembered one thing the B-17 could not match that the 24 is the runaway winner. Both aircraft had great nose art but, the 24 you have to love that flying billboard.

This debate has been going since both A/C took to the air.It is well doccumented that the B-17 could take more abuse and still return while if the B-24 did return damaged,you wanted to get the hell out before a questionable landing.As with most crews,you would develope an affinity to the A/C you flew.I once heard that B-17 crews would refer to the B-24 as"The Crate The B-17 Came In",and the B-24 crews would refer to B-17 as "gliders" because of it's slightly smaller dimensions.Both were great A/C that served thier country well in respective roles,and each brought a large number of crews home safely.I hold a great respect to all crews who fought for our freedom in any bomber especially those who did not return.My hat is off to any young man that straps himself into any of those A/C and heads off on a mission with the odds not in his favor.As far as appearance,I think they each had thier own beauty but they are both a big part of our history.

Everyone has touched on many points pro and con to both acft. But the b17 could absorb more punishment and that was due in part to the broad wing. One area though that was not mentioned was the partial gear down/wheels up landing. Just look at the two acft and this question answers itself. If you had to make a crash landing in one of the two, would you want a low wing or a shoulder mounted wing?

oops..I meant flaming coffins!

Regards, Dan

QUOTE: Originally posted by boybuddho Weren't the B-24s nicknamed "flying coffins" because of their vulnerable fuel tanks? Regards, Dan

I think "officially" the Waco CG-4A "HADRIAN" glidders were most commonly referred to as "Flying Coffins". Although I've heard B17s referred to as "Flying Coffins" as well. Probably by Bombadiers and Ball Turret Gunners.

Speaking of which, has anyone seen a 1/48 scale kit for the Waco CG-4A "HADRIAN" glidder? Sorry. Tangent.

Weren't the B-24s nicknamed "flying coffins" because of their vulnerable fuel tanks?

Regards, Dan

I have always heard of the B-17 being "tougher". One of the main reasons I always heard was due to the ability of the Fort to ditch. With the low wings it was better able to ditch on the water and belly in on land. The Liberator with the high wings tended not to do as well.

QUOTE: I got a tour of the interior of a restored B-17 this past summer at an air show. How did anyone, let alone a nearly 6 foot tall man, fit in that ball turret???? Joe

According to my great Uncle Charlie, he seemed to recall there was a height restriction of 5' 4" for ball turret gunners on the B-17s. Thus when you look at pictures of B-17 crews, it's pretty easy to pick out the ball turret gunner.

My late grandfather was a ball gunner on B-17F "Cash and Carrie" out of the 390th BG/570th which flew out of England. After 13 missions, his 17 was shot down October 10th, 1943 on the Muenster mission (I think) presummably by an ME- 109. From what I understand, the whole front end was shot off. The entire crew (including grandpa)bailed out, save for the pilot and co-pilot who then managed to belly land somewhere in Germany. All survived with minimal injury. Grandpa spent the remainder of the war in Stalag 17B. He died when I was two (1974, do the math) so I never got the chance to talk to him about his experience "over there". My dad said he only talked about it once to him and he was "pretty liquored up". My dad said he asked him if he ever shot one down. He said, "I got one......I think". I suppose this is were my WWII aviation obsession stems from.

Through research to include locating one of my grandad's crewmate's family, I was able to get a very fuzzy German recon photo of the plane crashed on the ground. Needless to say, the 17 was a mess. It looked like the nose was shoved through a meat grinder. However, they were still able to land it and save two lives. My vote goes for the 17 but I'm sure its fueled by sentimental reasons rather than fact. If it weren't for the 17, Grandpa probably wouldn't have made it through 13 missions and I wouldn't be here today typing this at 4am (I work second shift). Those were some brave men back then and I thank every WWII vet I get the privilege to meet.

I got a tour of the interior of a restored B-17 this past summer at an air show. How did anyone, let alone a nearly 6 foot tall man, fit in that ball turret????

Joe

PBY Catalina

Oh wait... that's not one of the choices is it. Well, that's what my great Uncle was flying on as the radio man into Pearl the morning of December 7th 1941. He missed the attack by a few hours, but saw enough. Had to siphon fuel from damaged planes and drums they hoisted up on to the wings to get theirs flying again. He stayed in the Pacific based at Pearl and eventually other islands (can't remember them all) flying Reconaissance and Rescue missions, "Snatchin' SNAFUs most of the time", as he used to say.

Anyhoo, the pilots he chatted with in passing swore by the toughness of the B17 over any other bomber at its time and before the 29s started showing up. He said he never saw so many pictures of one kind of bomber return so torn up from attack. I think I remember him saying something along the lines of the only way the Germans could really get them down in a hurry was a full frontal atack and from below. Thus why the bombadiers and ball-turret gunners were the most common casualties.

My cousin was a flight engineer in a B-24 in the Pacific theatre during WW11 and he hated it! When a Liberator was fully loaded with fuel and bombs he said that if the coral runway had been rained on the takeoff with that load would sometimes caused that Davis wing to flex so much that rubber fuel tanks used on long missions which were located in the upper part of the bomb bay would leak along their seams--not much fun watching fuel drip on the bomb load! Once in the air the leaks would stop but the fact that almost all of the hydraulic lines were located against the ceiling of the bomb bay made the crew feel very vulnerable. By the way, once the war ended, he refused ever to fly again!

B17 could take a lot more punishment and still come home

Actually Dragon and his Tail was All American. They redid the paint scheme. The real Dragon and His Tail Never escaped the scrap pile. Now back to the subject, I really like both of the bombers and it really dont matter in my eyes which one was tougher than the other.

Dear friends,

One final thought...after giving this some more thought, I realized that it probably is pretty difficult to have a final answer to this...I would guess if you were in either a B-17 or B-24 and had a close call with a shot up aircraft that one would tend to think that plane really did well in getting you back...likewise, watching one go down in flames probably reinforced a negative view. I would suppose there are fliers from both planes with absolutely CERTAIN beliefs in their aircraft. In each case, I would think they would be right...

Matt

There was a saying amongst B17 crews that the B24 was the packing case that the B17 came in!!!!

If you want to read about B24s and the crews that flew them read 'Wild Blue', it really is an eye opener.

Aparently the stated maximun take of weight for a B24 was 60,000lbs, but the actual take off weight was nearer 70,000 for a machine going into combat!!!!! Crashes on take off were not uncommon.

The B24 was a more stable bombing platform because its bomb doors did not project into the slipstream like those of the B17, thus upsetting aiming.

However B17 was definitely the machine to be in, in the case of a forced landing due to the tendency of the B24 to break its back, especially when ditching.

As a result of the Davis wing the B24 could not reach the same altitudes as the B17, and therefore suffered more at the hands of the German 88s and 128mm Flak.

All the above does, is put into perspective the risks facing those flying in these machines!

Okay, to beat this dead horse a little more.
In the book The Man Who Flew the Memphis Belle pilot Robert Morgan talks about a conversation he had with a former Focke-Wulfe pilot years after the war.
Morgan asked him about the Luftwaffe's tendency to veer from the B-17s and go after the B-24s when they showed up. The German pilot's response "Oh, ja,...If the B-24s were there, we would attack them, because they were easier to knock down."

Just thought I'd contribute with an interesting story I heard, though slightly OT.

FWIW, I've also read that the B-17 was able to absorb more punishment than many other bombers, but it's all subjective i guess.

Anyway, my story is that while on vacation last year, we took a break from Disneyworld and I dragged the wife and kids to a warbird restoration museum in Kissimmee(sp?) FL. They were restoring a B-17 there (ca't remember what her 'name' was) that had been used to test early turboprop engines. They had pics of this bird with a turboprop mounted in the nose, replacing the bombardier's compartment. The guide said that during the tests, with the four original props feathered, the plane flew faster with the turboprop than in its 'stock' configuration. Interestingly, on the first flight, they had to land rather abruptly because rivets were popping out all over the place inside the aircraft! They attributed this at first to a bad batch of rivets during a repair, so they fixed it and sent it up again. Same thing happened! It turns out the airframe was actually twisting enough to pop the rivets because it wasn't designed to handle the amount of torque exerted by the turboprop! The plane eventually ended up at the museum where they were restoring it to combat condition. I thought this was a cool story, even though it doesn't really add anything to the debate about B17 v. B24.

Can't help but weigh in here...I grew up near a fellow who flew gunner on B-17 and he said he did time in B-24 as well. I thought the one comment that B-17 was a "flying coffin" was interesting....he said the same about the B-24! He indicated there was much more confidence in the B-17 by most airmen.

In addition, I have read quite a bit of WWII aviation history and certainly got the impression that the B-17 had a "tougher" reputation than the B-24. But I sure don't see this settling the debate! If memory serves, there were a lot more construction type things that flyers liked about the B-17 more than the B-24.
Seems to me I read the German flyers were more afraid of attacking the B-17 also (altho that certainly depended on the version)

Just my thoughts...

If "tougher" means being able to absorb greater punishment and still fly home I think it is the B-17.

Yes, Diamond Lil is still in service with the Commemorative Air Force.

Oh, I think she's still around. I dunno what her flight status is, though...


Fade to Black...

Whatever happened to Diamond Lil?

Merlin,
Hey, like the B-24, Ms. Albright is a fine, upstanding lady!
Oh wait...you said DEMI Moore, Right?
Thought you said DUDLEY Moore...OK. No argument there!!

So "All American" got a name change! I'm just glad to hear she's still flying! Thanks for the info.

QUOTE: Originally posted by roadkill_275 Don't know why because the B-24 just looks better!!

Yep...........and Madelyn Albright's much prettier than Demi Moore!

The B-24J at Barksdale AFB is a flyable machine. It would probably need an overhaul now after sittingout in the open for so long. I talked to a guy that was there when I was visiting the museum and he told me that they had flown it from Phoenix, Az to Shreveport, La! I wish I had been on that flight, as the B-24 is my favorite heavy.
For the record the B-24 carried more farther and faster! But the B-17 is more popular. Don't know why because the B-24 just looks better!!

The Collings foundation maintains those aircraft..www. collingsfoundation.org...I've flown in both..I'm in awe of anyone who would go into combat in such a thing..truly brave...there are 3 B-24s that can fly..one is actually an LB-30(CAF) and one was owned privately and is being restored in Florida at I belive kevin Weeks fantasy of flight works..all those B-24s in junkyards are gone...if anyone wants ..go to Heavybombers.com..they have the stats on all restorations and locations of heavy bombers in the US and in other countries.
its a great resource for the B17 b24 and B29 ...also try accessing under www. armyairforces.com.

Hulk

The B-24 formerly known as"All American" is still flying with the Collings Foundation but was repainted as "Dragon and His Tail"
You can go for a ride in it or its sister ship the B-17 "Nine-O-Nine" for a mere $400.00 for a half hour.

Does anyone know what happened to the B-24J "All-American?" I saw it fly in 1995 in Jacksonville, Florida. I'm hoping it's lovingly on display somewhere, and not lost to us. When I saw it in '95, it was in beautiful shape, like a new aircraft.

I have read The Wild Blue and thoroughly enjoyed it as well as all the other Ambrose books I've read in the past. RIP

As far as the Collings Foundation bombers, I have seen them both several times up close and personal and this year even took a ride on the B24 . It is indeed the last flying B24. My grandfather was a nose gunner based on Ie Shima in the Pacific. I spent at least 1/2 the flight sitting in that turret and trying to imagine what it must have been like in formation with dozens of other 24s or even having bandits coming at your ship with guns blazing. I don't believe any large bird at 25,000 ft with 1/8th inch of aluminum between you and 20 or 30 mm cannon shells and flak hitting it would be very tough. I'd have to say the 17 though between the two. The 24s were indeed not what you would want to be in if you had to ditch. The bomb bays would collapse due to their design. The 17, with its large wings and more conventional bomb bay would be the plane to ditch in. I imagine it would float longer than a 24 would anyways.

I believe I read somewhere that someone was working on bringing another 24 to flying condition. There are several around as static displays and the rest (as with most other post war surplus) wound up being scrapped. Several bombers were put to use after the war as
fire bombers though and I believe the Colling Foundation B17 '909' served time fighting western wild fires.