You are correct. In the book "Wild Blue," Stephen Ambrose documented the losses on take-off and landing suffered by the "Liberators" which were unforgiving compared with the "Flying Fortresses." A Fort could take much more punishment from both flak and fighters, and still bring most of the crew home. It was also a steadier bombing platform - not to mention how beautifully streamlined it was.
The B-24 was only a better plane on PAPER..her combat losses in the ETO were 20% higher then the B-17s.. In 1944,Generals Spatz & Doolittle reqested more B-17s & less b-24s and converted five bomb groups from b24s back to b17s...The 17 was the far tougher aircraft...
You are correct. In the book "Wild Blue," Stephen Ambrose documented the losses on take-off and landing suffered by the "Liberators" which were unforgiving compared with the "Flying Fortresses." A Fort could take much more punishment from both flak and fighters, and still bring most of the crew home. It was also a steadier bombing platform - not to mention how beautifully streamlined it was.
MrPloopy 2 years ago
but neither stack up to teh B52 strato-fortress
plaj1359 2 years ago
you would never see just one.
remingtonh 4 years ago
The B-24 was only a better plane on PAPER..her combat losses in the ETO were 20% higher then the B-17s.. In 1944,Generals Spatz & Doolittle reqested more B-17s & less b-24s and converted five bomb groups from b24s back to b17s...The 17 was the far tougher aircraft...
WorkinStiffPGH 4 years ago
The b24 was the better heavy, but couldn't fly as high.
redbaroniii 4 years ago
THAT AIRPLANE IS A PIECE OF SHIT
Bolche1917 4 years ago