Re: B-17 and B-24 some numbers.
- From: Louis C <louisc00@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 07:35:03 -0500
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...
- Prev by Date: Re: Commerce Raiders
- Next by Date: Re: Commerce Raiders
- Previous by thread: Re: B-17 and B-24 some numbers.
- Next by thread: Re: B-17 and B-24 some numbers.