Re: B-17 and B-24 some numbers.

Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
However I also note the reality a higher percentage of heavily damaged
8th AF B-24s made it back to allied territory. So be in a B-17 if
attacked, be in a B-24 if you want to keep flying after taking heavy
damage, the type that the air force decides is not worth repairing.

Do we know whether the air force decision to repair or not was the
same for all types? If I understand your figures correctly, you show
more B-24s reaching a friendly base and being subsequently scrapped
than B-17s. These planes are later counted as "combat losses". Instead
of higher survivability when damaged, couldn't it be that the B-24 was
simply harder to repair, and therefore more likely to be written off
when heavily damaged?

Sorry not to contribute something other than trying to spoil your fun,
but I just had to ask...


LC

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT F-117 retired
    ... 17 at 3) in the same period speaks volumes about the relative merits of the designs. ... All I know is that my father, who was in charge of the people that would clean the remains of the dead crews out of the returning B-24s of the 460th "Black Panthers" bomb group at Spinazzola, Italy, said the aircrews liked the B-17 better than the Liberator, and would have preferred to be flying them.* ... We made a lot more of them than B-17s, but the crews didn't like them as well according to him. ... When I was digging around for photos of B-24s on the web, I came across the remark that B-17 crews liked mixed operations with B-24s, as the B-24s generally flew at lower altitude and attracted the flak, so maybe that's it. ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: B-17 and B-24 some numbers.
    ... 8th AF B-24s made it back to allied territory. ... So be in a B-17 if ... damage, the type that the air force decides is not worth repairing. ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)