World War II American Big Bombers: B-17 vs. B-24. Which was the better?

Question

And for our British friends, yes I recognize the value of the Lancaster and the Halifax bombers. The Stirling made a pretty good glider tug.

B-24 carried a bigger bomb load, was a tad faster and had more range. It was heavy on the controls, armed to the teeth and saw action in every theater of operations in World War II.

B-24 crews are loyal to their airplane.

B-17 was prettier, flew higher, and could take an incredible amount of punishment and still come home. It is the bomber we associate with the Eighth Air Force. Crews were extremely loyal to this aircraft.

More B-24s were built. The B-24 was a newer design, designed to exceed B-17 capabilities. It is generally recognized that bombing was one of the main reasons Germany was defeated in World War II. B-24s also bombed Japan.

Which one do you love?

I'm 66 years old.

I have been a huge B-17 fan since I was in high school, but have tried to learn about the B-24 and recognize its value.

The B-17 probably did a little better in a heavy flak environment than the B-24, partly because it could fly a little higher and partly because of its rugged design.

The B-24 was a dominant heavy bomber in the Pacific.

A little historical background--Boeing developed the Model 299 which became the B-17 prototype and first flew in 1935. Boeing did as it has often done, hitchhiked good ideas from previous aircraft, the B-9 bomber design and the Model 247 airliner, to build what became a controversial long-range bomber design that almost never got produced because of Army and Navy political issues.

However bomber advocates managed to get 14 production prototypes, designated Y1B-17 and Y1B-17A, produced, followed by 38 B-17B, delivered in 1939.

Another 80 B-17s, designated B-17C and B-17D, were delivered in 1941. 20 of these were lend-leased to Britain, which had not yet produced the Stirling, its first 4-engine bomber.

By late 1941, with the B-17E, the B-17 was a mature weapons system, with power turrets, better engines and a stronger airframe.

The B-24 was proposed in 1938-39 and Consolidated built and flew the design in 1940. It borrowed its tail from a flying boat and incorporated the high-lift Davis airfoil, the key to its performance.

It took a couple of years to match the B-17 as a mature system, but quickly proved its value. The B-24 is probably most famous for the Ploesti oil field raid of 1943, but also served in many other capacities, including high-altitude raids over Europe alongside the B-17.

The B-17 had a service ceiling of about 33,000 feet compared to the service ceiling of 30,000 feet for the B-24. The B-24 was faster, carried a heavier bomb load, and had a longer range, but it was more vulnerable to enemy action, particularly flak.

The British experiment with the first 20 B-17C lend lease bombers was not exactly a success. But it proved valuable to the Army Air Corps and Boeing in refining the design.

Answer 1

I will say the B17 because it was around longer than the B24. The bombings of the German Industrial might was done with the majority of the bombers being B17's.

The British did bomb as well, but they could not make the bombers as fast as America could so they were slower to replace their losses.

I believe that any aircrew will be loyal to the bird that flew them to the target and back safely.

Dont forget that the B17 did see action in the Pacific as well.

The B 24 Liberator was known not to take battle damage very well and would often catch fire due to where the fuel tanks would be. The Liberator only had 1 entrance/exit door (located in the rear of the bird) so it made it very difficult to have the bomber and forward flight crew to exit the plane, hence its nickname the "Flying Coffin".

Defensive capabilites were similar save for the 24 had a retractable belly turret, where as the 17's was fixed.

A major problem with the 24's later in the war was that they were built by different companies (similar to the AMC cars of the 70's) and there fore ran into problems of different parts being needed (plane was the same save for mechanical abilities depending on where plane was built).

The B17 was built with the same specs in mind for the entire war, it was very easy to work on and parts could be swapped from plane to plane without concern.

My vote...the Fortress hands down. Newer does not always mean better.

Answer 2

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
World War II American Big Bombers: B-17 vs. B-24. Which was the better?
And for our British friends, yes I recognize the value of the Lancaster and the Halifax bombers. The Stirling made a pretty good glider tug.

B-24 carried a bigger bomb load, was a tad faster and had more range. It was heavy on the controls, armed to the teeth and saw action in every theater of...

Answer 3

The B-24 was a better bomber than the B-17, in the same way that the Hurricane was a better fighter than the Spitfire. Some airplanes capture the popular imagination just like automobiles do - for no particular reason except style.

Give me a choice and I'll take a B-29 or a P-51 (or, an Me-262, properly marked!)

Answer 4

For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/Mts8p

The B-29 was considerably larger. It was also very revolutionary for it's time. Very long range bomber and with a pressurized fuselage. It was designed during WWII and it dropped the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war. The B-17 was designed and entered service prior to the US entering WWII. It was mainly used during daylight bombing missions over Germany. The B-29 continued service with the Air Force after the war, on the other hand the B-17 was phased out almost immediately as it was considered obsolete. Another important bomber of the was was the B-24 Liberator that was used alongside the B-17 during bombing runs to Germany.

Answer 5

The B-24 was a larger, heavier bomber with a greater bomb load, It also was more fragile and less able to take punishment. B-17s survived heavy damages and made it back more than the 24s did.
I don't think you could ditch at sea in a 24 and expect to survive either. Also with a wing tank fire, a wing was more likely to fold up and fail in just a few seconds.

Answer 6

It would depend on each person's point of view.

The B-17 was more rugged, could take more damage and still fly, and had better defensive armament.

The B-24 was faster, had a larger bomb load, a higher ceiling, and was more versatile (maritime reconnaissance versions were superior to similiar B-17-based models).

The B-17 is far more famous, but the B-24 was built in larger numbers.

Answer 7

I knew a radio man of a B-24. He was shot down twice, once trading mortal wounds with a U-Boat in the north seas and second after being mauled by a pair of German fighters. He said that B-24 was fragile. If you lose a single engine, you're going down like a brick. B-17's? FAR tougher birds. Read Flying Fortress by Edward Jablonski .

Answer 8

You've pretty well answered your own question. Not being fond of being shot at, I'd rather have flown a B-24 out of Brazil on anti-ship/anti-submarine patrol, but if I were forced to fly over the heavy flak in Germany, I'd worry about that wing spar in the 24 and opt for the 17.

Answer 9

The B-17 was a very good bomber and could go
through a whole lot of damage before any other bomber!!

Answer 10

B17 Vs B24