B-17 vs B-24: Which was better?

One of these four-engined, long range, USAF WW2 heavy bombers was 80% more effective than the other. How? Which one? And why? Join me on a statistical deep dive into America's WW2 heavy bomber trio: The Consolidated B-24 Liberator vs the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress.

CREDIT:
WW2 US Bombers

Chapters:
00:00 Intro
01:15 Why Two Bombers?
02:30 The Davis Wing
03:12 Model 32 - The B-24
03:55 80% Better?
04:38 Sponsor Message
05:48 Accuracy
08:27 Loss Rate
11:12 Overall Efficiency
12:24 Was it REALLY better?
13:13 Outro

All content is presented in historical context for educational purposes.
All footage is owned by its copyright holder and is used in this channel under "fair use".

Music by Epidemic Sound

[dimesonhiseyes]

I knew a man that flew both. He had very little good things to say about the B24. He absolutely loved the B17. He never flew either in full combat although he did say they were fired at from a German fighter once but as he said "we just exchanged shots at each other from long distance before we both decided to go back home".

[cdjhyoung]

My father was a B24 pilot in the 8th Air Force. The things he mentioned to me about flying the B24 included these thoughts: The B24 was out of balance when loaded with bombs. He called it tail dragging. That is where the issue of hard to fly starts. Trying to correct for that is what fatigued the pilot, he could never truly relax in flight. Once the bomb load was gone, the plane could be leveled out and it would fly much easier. He, and his flight crew, had also discovered that if they could move enough weight forward in the plane that it flew slightly nose down, he could stretch the distance the plane could fly quite significantly. On his last leg of flying from the US to England, he had ordered the crew to stuff all their gear in the nose of the plane and the entire crew was also forward of the balance point. This saved enough fuel on that flight that instead of setting down in Scotland with the rest of his flight, he was ordered to continue on to his home base just north of London instead. His fuel consumption was 400 gallons less for that leg of the trip than the other B24's in that formation. He flew eleven bombing mission before be reassigned, only two of them into Germany. One thing that isn't mentioned in this video is that it was much, much harder to exit a stricken B24 than a B17. This contributed a lot to the fatality difference between the two aircraft.
The question should be asked why knowing that the B24 was inferior why was it built in such large numbers. The reason is that the B24 was designed to be mass produced and took significantly fewer man hours to build one plane than the B17. That labor could also, generally, be lower skilled workers than were required for the B17 construction. My dad flew them, my mother and her sister and father made B24's at Willow Run.

[notmenotme]

1:51 After all these years I never realised the B-24 derived from a flying boat design until I saw this. You can see the similarities in the photograph.

[kyleolson]

The problem with accuracy comes down to altitude and the bombsight. We all know that the Norden BombsightⓇ could hit a pickle barrel at 30, 000ft (or your money back). Unfortunately, the B-24s were flying at 25k; they could not aim for pickle barrels properly.
Frankly, the bombing campaign in Europe would have been much harder if the Germans didn't like pickles so much that the allies were able to design a bombsight around this weakness.

[t.r.]

Had an uncle that was a tail gunner and ball turret gunner on the B-17. He earned a silver star for shooting down two Bf 109s in one sortie. He also earned a bronze star and a couple other medals. Made 26 flights over France and Germany. Made it home to live a long life. The journal he kept on those long flights is amazing to read. I haven't read all of it. But what I have read is amazing. My mother has the original and I need to match up dates with some of the notable engagements.

[bigblue]

It was originally thought that the crew of the B-24 which had its wing hit and blown off, 9:35, had all been killed. But as it turned out one crew member did survive but this was not reported until after the war in Europe had ended. His injuries were so bad he never walked again. He was due to marry a British woman but she was told he had died with the rest of the crew and when he was liberated he was taken back to the States so she never knew he'd survived.

[almartin]

That sounds very similar to our family history:

My father, John Allan Martin, enlisted in the Army Air Corps (1942), age 18, and served as a gunner and radio operator on B-17s and B-24s. The B-24 was more comfortable, but the B-17 was safer. He was assigned to the 8th Air Force in England and flew 35 combat missions over Europe. Including one shown as "SECRET" on his papers.

According to him, later while watching “12 O’clock High” on TV, he thought that it was very well done and he liked the show. He did say that instead of the large letter “A” in the show their planes carried a large letter “P” there. He was in the 387th Bombardment Squadron of 487th Bombardment Group. The records for many crew members were lost during a fire at Fort Benjamin Harrison.

His brother, age 20, was a Navy aviator flying in the Pacific area: his plane was shot down . The bad news was wired to the family, who were surprised three months later when he walked in the front door in his Navy uniform.

My father had left the service at the end of the war and worked as a TV/Radio engineer. He was called back to duty for the Korean conflict but didn’t have to deploy; and stayed with the new US Air Force. He retired in 1968 after 26 years of active duty and died in 1976. His brother also passed in 2005.

Both brothers are buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

Regards

[Charon]

The 24, as mentioned, was critical in the longest and arguably most significant battle of the war, the Battle of the North Atlantic. It was very suited to anti-submarine patrol.

[ThatsMrPencilneckU]

While my father armed P-47's and P-51's, I met a ball turret gunner that few on B-17's. He was one of the few who had a choice. He said a B-17 could make it on one engine, but a B-24 could not maintain speed and altitude after the loss of just one. I don't know how true that is, but it shows what the enlisted personnel thought about the survivablity of the two aircraft. It was a short conversation. I repaired the copier at the VFW hall.

[arkwill]

I've always heard that Generals and planners liked the B-24 because it delivered more bombs on target for less logistical cost. But crews liked the B-17 because it was more likely to bring them home.

[PitFriend]

I read a book by a Luftwaffe pilot a long time ago. He said they much preferred to attack B-24s. He said they tended to catch fire more easily than B-17s so they were much easier to shoot down. He thought it was because the B-24s weren’t as streamlined as the B-17s. The pilots called them “furniture vans” due to the boxy shape of the planes.

The one real design feature I would say the B-24 had over the B-17 was that the ball turret in its belly could be retracted into the plane for takeoffs and landings. This both made it easier for the gunners to get into the thing as well as less of a chance of getting stuck inside it, which was horrible if the plane had to belly land.

[SomeMook]

B17 air crews would taunt B 24 air crews by making the observation that the B 24 was simply the crate that was used to ship the B 17 into theatre. Utmost respect and appreciation for Allied Aircrews regardless of the aircraft assigned to them. They fought bravely and they fought well.

I heard a story about a B 17 raid over occupied France. On the route past Paris the lead B 17 Bombardier decided to check his bombsight by targeting a small park bordering Paris. To his horror, when he sighted in, his bomb load released - which was the signal for the rest of the flight to drop their bombs too. Back at base, feeling horrible about what had gone wrong and fearing the repercussions for bombing a civilian area the Pilot, Co-pilot, Navigator and Bombardier were called into the Command post and were informed that the Germans had been using housing surrounding the park for their own troops, civilian casualties had been minimal, German casualties had been high and the French Resistance were amazed and impressed with the accuracy displayed by the 8th Air Force. Chalk the incident up to the vagaries of the fortunes of War.

[DarkHorseSki]

This is a well done video. What is missing is how the planes performed in the Pacific, where it seems the B-24 was a better choice (even with the water landing issue.)

[axmenfirearms]

My grandfather was in the Army Air Corps during WWII. He did all his training in B17's and B24's becoming a gunnery instructor until being finally assigned to a B29 as a tail gunner. He said the B17 was his favorite but the B29 was so much more advanced with the remote powered turrets and pressurized interior. The B29 was way faster and could fly higher but was much less reliable, especially with the engines. It was the ONLY plane that could carry the A Bomb. His aircraft was a photo reconnaissance version with cameras installed in the bomb bays. He passed away in 2014 but I have his old pictures of him and his aircraft and crew. He had 1200 hours all in B17's, B24's and B29's. Miss you Grandpa ED LAIL.

[samiam]

The man who “Unbroken” is about had some things to say about the B24. Not all of them nice. Never saw the movie, but I read the book. It didn’t hurt that he’s from my home town (Torrance, Ca) and the muni airport is named after him.

[thomsalveson]

This was well thought out and presented.
I think that another thing to mention in the comparison, is the number of spars per foot in the wings & fuselage of the B-17.
The B-17 had nearly double the number of spars compared to other aircraft, making it very rigid and very durable. B-17s would come home with massive amount of damage that would cause other aircraft to fail.

[stevesummers]

One feature that often goes overlooked is that the B-17 is much easier to move around in and traverse front to rear. The B-24, though looking big and roomy is incredibly difficult to move around in comparably speaking. Thought I’ve never had to wear a parachute on either plane much less bail out of one, I imagine this characteristic had a lot to do with crew survivability.

[jimscheltens]

My dad was a B24 pilot. Started bombing Germany early in the war and continued until shortly after the D-day invasion. His tail gunner wrote me a letter after my dad died and told me that one time they came home with a massive hole in one of the wings. My father didn’t talk about his service, but once I was in a book store with him looking a military book and I saw a photo of a B24 with a very large part of the wing was blown away. I asked my father if his plane had ever had damage like that. He looked at the photo for a long time and said yes and walked away. He didn’t like the memory and didn’t want to talk about it.

[OttoSlangur]

I like what Jimmy Stewart had to say about the difference between the two. He said any kid or his grandmother could fly a B17 in about a week but it took a true pilot to fly and master a B24. I think that tells you which was easier. He also said a lot of the missions were not very well planned for the B24 which lead to a lot of loses. Always over loading it to where that controlling it was difficult.

[Vincent-GulfofMexico]

My uncle Albert was a ball turret gunner in both planes—50 missions. He never spoke about his experience, except with my dad. As kids, we snuck up behind a patio wall to listen to my uncle and dad retelling a few stories. Both never spoke if they ever killed anyone. Both were highly decorated. The worst thing we heard my uncle say was seeing bodies falling through the sky, one hitting another plane and breaking into pieces on the plane.