"B-24 to B-17 ratio" Topic

I know that the B-24 was the more produced of the two, but what was the proportion of B-24s to B-17s in service? In particular, was there a difference between usage in the Pacific and in Europe?

B-24s more in the Pacific. Had a longer range, iirc. Faster too. I believe the B-17 outnumbered the B-24 in Europe, but not by much.

Comparatively today, there are, I believe three B-24s still flying, whereas there are thirteen B-17s that are still "airworthy"….

Pacific:

At the start of the great pacific war there were really no B-24 units in the Pacific and only a few B-17 units. The B-17 soldiered on in the Philippines and Java and then out of Australia for the rest of 1942. There were a small number of LB-30s (export B-24s) used primarily for priority cargo and the occasional bombing mission. A few B-24s in theater by Midway – just a few.

The B-17 continued on into 1943, but by then the decision had been made to replace all B-17s in the Pacific with B-24s because the later had a far greater range. From then it was all B-24s until the arrival of the B-29 units.

Europe:

The initial aircraft to arrive in England in 1942-43 were B-17 units. However, five groups of B-24s arrived as well. The B-24s eventually moved to the Mediterranean for "Tidal Wave" – the Ploesti raid, and eventually returned.

Because of the ranges involved in 1943-44, The were more B-17 groups in England. In 1943-44 the 8th Air Force had three Divisions, two composed of B-17s and one composed of B-24s.

In the Med, the ranges were longer and there were more B-24 groups sent there – IIRC, during 1944 the split was about 50-50.

I am away from my copious Europe Bombing Campaign books, so this is all just general.

Mark E. Horan

Generally, the B-24 was appreciated for its superior payload-over-range performance, while the B-17 was seen as the more 'rugged' model, more survivable against strong fighter opposition. So by 1944, the 8th Air Force was flying most of the B-17s against the Luftwaffe.

There was a group of B-24s based in China in 1944-45, although active operations were somewhat limited by lack of supply.

Many B-24s were handed over to the US Navy for ultra-long-range anti-submarine patrol in the Atlantic, and USAAF B-24s also flew many maritime patrols.

Production numbers: B-17 12,726 B-24 18,188

The 17 was in the ETO from the start – as an RAF
aircraft and it was not really well received by the
RAF. The 24 did not serve in any numbers in the
ETO until Summer, 1943 and beyond whereas the 17
was in service from Spring, 1942 in the ETO.

As far as ratio's go, as the war in the ETO progressed
it was about 2:1 17's over 24's BUT not because the
17 was better or the 24 inferior.

Greater range and less significant fighter opposition
dictated the use of the 24 in greater numbers in the
PTO from Fall 1943 to war's end, while the 17 was phased
out of active combat operations in the PTO.

OTOH, the availability of bases in Italy and France
meant that the 17 could be more effectively used in the
ETO until the planners literally ran out of worthwhile
strategic targets. Shorter ranges to target and increased
escort availability meant the 17 could be used very
effectively in the 1944-1945 period.

One fact about the Lib that hasn't been mentioned is that the Davis wing made it difficult and tiring to fly at high altitude. This was more of a problem in Europe than in the Pacific. The 8th AF under Doolittle was trying, but never succeeded, in becoming an all B17 Force. Of course we need to remember that the 8th wasn't the only Strategic AF in Europe. The 15th operated out of Italy and was constituted from the 12th AF, heavy bomber units of the 9th AF and a couple of groups from the 8th. They operated both 17s and 24s.

The RAF operated the 24, in Europe mainly in Coastal Command where the 24 long range (they were labelled VLR, Very Long Range) and loiter times gave them an edge against U-boats. There were also a couple of "dogfights" between Libs and FW 200 Condors.

Some notable men piloted the 24 in Europe, including the actor Jimmy Stewart and former Senator and Presidential candidate George McGovern.

BTW, the Strategic Bombers were never (during the war) based in France due to logistic considerations.

Another thing worth mentioning about B-24s in the 8th USAAF is that at first they often flew diversions – out over the North Sea before turning back. Sometimes this worked but quite often the LW did not take the bait.

I guess 8th USAAF planners did not have as much confidence in the early B-24s to cope with concentrated fighter attacks.

B-24s did participate in actual attacks during 1942-3 – but far less so than B-17s. Usually they went to targets in France or the low countries but they did make a few attacks on Germany.

By 1944 the B-24s were flying a lot of missions but the ratio was about 2:1 in favour of B-17s.

Always had a soft spot for the Liberator. Such an ugly old pug. My English teacher in middle school told us about flying one over the Himalayas (carrying a group of Gurkhas) and almost running out of fuel. I wish he'd told us more such stories and taught us less grammar!

It was pointed out to me recently that the Liberator's tail arrangement made defense against a rear attack more powerful than a Fortress. You could have the top turret shooting backwards in addition to the tail and ball guns. Was this a factor that the LW took into consideration? Or is this just an after-the-fact assertion made by geeks?…

I think it's geek wisdom. Never heard or read of that being an issue.

The Tail Guns on a B-24 had better field of fire than on a B-17 – I did read that somewhere. There are less guns overall though – no radio operator gun and no cheek guns – however useful these were – I guess not much.

I also read a few places that B-24s were more apt to catch fire if hit and broke up more easily.

There is gun camera footage on youtube of attacks on B-17s and B-24s including rear attacks. There doesn't seem to be much fire coming back in these but I suspect they are already crippled a/c.

Thanks for the info! I've always wondered whether there was a difference. I've also always wondered why the B-17 was more iconic despite being generally inferior, but that's for another time.
I must admit, when referring to the Liberator, I like skipping the "B-24" bit and calling them "Consolidated Liberators". It sounds rather silly like that, doesn't it?

'Consolidated Liberator' has that made-in-America-by-heavy-industry ring that used to be so typical of this country. Half-tracks by International Harvester, trucks by Studebaker, pistols by Colt.

Someone (allegedly) asked a German officer, whose generals were the best in WWII? The German (allegedly) answered, "The American Generals…General Mills, General Foods, General Motors…".

I don't think the B-17 was generally inferior to the B-24.

Bomb load and range were significantly less but ultra long range was not necessary in the ETO. Resilience and defensive armament the B-17 was better. Also – the B-24 could not hold the tight formations needed to deter the LW and flew in looser formations.

While we shouldn't forget the contribution made by B-24s and their crews I doubt they could have survived the high intensity operations of mid-late 1943. The LW at that time was winning the attrition war against B-17s [and the B-24s were hardly ever risked on raids into Germany].

If they hadn't had the B-17 in huge numbers the 8th USAAF would probably not have been able to continue unescorted daylight bombing during 1943. As it was it came close. Less bull-headed commanders might well have had a serious rethink.

It is interesting to note that in the Pacific the B-24 and B-25 were the favored models, while in the ETO the more rugged B-17 and B-26 were preferred.

Ruggedness was a more critical virtue in ETO. Range was a more important virtue in PTO.

The B-24 had the advantage not only in range, but in bombload at any given range, compared to the B-17. There is one perspective that says even if less rugged, it might have led to fewer crew casualties as fewer crews would have been required for similar amounts of bombs on target (or more bombs on more targets could have been done with the same number of crews). And there is one line of reasoning that suggests that the higher cruise altitude and speed of the B-24 for any given bombload would also have led to fewer interceptions, and that this too might have resulted in fewer crew losses.

But ETO bombers had to fly over many hundreds of miles of defended airspace. So long as the B-24 was within the effective altitude of the intercepting fighters, and was slower than the intercepting fighters, they were going to have to fight their way in and out. Thus we see the higher losses in B-24s than B-17s. The B-17 was just a tougher plane.

In PTO most of the missions involved flying long distances over un-contested empty space (the ocean). Interceptions were less frequent and less constant. Keeping the bomber airfields out of range of the enemy, and still hitting the enemy, was key.

Unhappily for the PTO crews, while the B-17 could be safely ditched in the water, the B-24 could not. The shoulder mounted wings and the twin bomb bays with cantilever doors resulted in an aircraft that did not plane across the surface when it came down on water. Instead the fuselage sank in, with high risk of violently breaking in half when the bomb bay doors burst inward from the water pressure. Because of this the crews were instructed to bail out, not ditch, in the event of an in-flight failure. Even though B-24s flew over water more than in almost any other bomber (both for their PTO bombing missions and their worldwide ASM missions), the B-17 was a safer plane for the crews in over-water missions.

In both ETO and PTO the B-24 was the plane that could get more bombs on more targets, but the B-17 was more beloved by their crews.

Said by a guy who has flown in both … but with no one shooting at me!

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

I read a quote from General Quesada that had the Germans developed the proximity fuse, the B-24 would have had to be withdrawn from the ETO.