B17 could take a lot more punishment and still come home
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!
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 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
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. [8)]
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.
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.
oops…I meant flaming coffins!
Regards, Dan
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?
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.
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.