Going on a longe range bombing mission in one of these things was far more dangerous and nerve-wracking than anything an infantryman, sailor, or tanker went through during the war. Especially before long-range fighter escorts were a thing.
I dare anyone on this board to prove me wrong.
well, yeah
as pretty as the B-17 was, it was horribly outdated by WW2 standards
And yet it didn't randomly explode from wing flex breaking fuel lines unlike the B-24 Liberator. It also might get you home.
I hear B-24 pilots had to actively wrestle with the controls because the wings kept vibrating and shifting their direction
> it was horribly outdated by WW2 standards
Wat
It was loved by its crew and considered a vastly superior plane compared to the liberator. Also I don’t know, know how it was outdated when its replacements were still propeller driven and had the same vulnerabilities.
>slow
>small bomb bay
>slow
wat
>small bomb bay
wat
Are you on drugs?
The B17 carried about half of what an F18 can carry, that's a tiny bomb load even for that era
Lol, k, then name a bomber in widespread service at the start of the war that could carry significantly more. It's okay, I'll wait...
>The B17 carried about half of what an F18 can carry
>a prop plane from 80 years ago can carry a lot less than a jet made more than 30 years later
holy shit jerome stop the presses you might have found a blazing new idea
>a tiny bomb load even for that era
>B-17 payload
4800lb
>B-24 payload
5500lb
>B-25 payload
2500lb
>B-26 payload
4000lb
>Ju 88 payload
1000lb
>Mitsubishi G4M payload
2000lb
Did some youtewb jenius bleat about this or something? It keeps popping up and it's hilariously wrong, the B-17 was a heavy bomber perfectly suited to its reputation and era, not some weird nerfed twink plane
Correct on both accounts.
And sometimes 'bombing under cover of daylight'.
Not a great combination.
News flash dipshit, all bombers of that era would be considered slow compared to todays bombers, not just the b-17. The b-17 wasn’t exceptionally slow.
It was slow compared to other bombers of the time.
News flash! You're a homosexual.
Not to heavy bombers you gay, and being that it was an interwar design it is still surprising it was as competitive as it was compared to its war time rivals. Every interwar design for a bomber was a piece of shift compared to the b-17.
It was slow anon. It was slow and it didn't carry enough bombs.
Feel free to look it up. Or continue to die on this hill. Your choice.
I’m not doing your leg work anon. I know I’m right. As far as interwar designs go it was fast and comparable to the bombers it competed with during the war.
Nope. Slow.
Name the bombers it was faster than. You can't.
>I’m not doing your leg work anon.
I did the leg work before I answered you anon. I wouldn't want to look like a moron, would I?
Too, bad you already are a moron so there’s nothing to stop you from looking like one.
Sure smells a lot like summer in here.
Have fun kiddo.
without being able to look it up, as my books are on the other side of the country at the moment, Ill try to recall what I can. The B-26 Marauder is my field of knowledge
it was slightly slower than the B-24, with a lower service ceiling. It was well regarded by its crews, especially with its propensity for getting back to base with absurd damage. The B-24 was very effective for what it was, but did have a stigma among its crews for being a hefty girl. They were both good at what they did even if the B-17 was a little older
don't forget the b24 couldn't fly level with a full bomb load. they had to enter formation with a dive or the plane would constantly pitch up
>they had to enter formation with a dive
is that because of wing incidence or location of the bomb rack?
>not enough payload
Lemme guess, you’re a lancastergay. If so I hope you realize the Lanc could only carry something like a quarter more bombs at the expense of a flight-accessible bomb bay.
Makes sense, the brits are always salty about the fact that the most useful thing they did after 1942 was act as a staging ground for the United States.
>Lanc could only carry something like a quarter more bombs at the expense of
Also at the expense of making it further than fricking Dunkirk and back
Are you stupid? The B-17 was comparable to the liberator in both average cruising speed and internal bomb bay capacity, and both the b-24 and b-17 were comparable, if not superior, to the main bombers of Germany and Japan.
It wasn’t outdated, nor was it super advanced. It was a decently built bomber that was inline with the tech that existed at the start of the war.
Flying unprotected day bombing missions in German airspace to target industrial areas covered with flak guns will do that to loss rates, no matter the bomber. You moron.
>You moron.
why so mad?
u r moro
The RAF flew mostly night missions moron get your facts straight.
The RAF had a 50% loss/mia/pow rate after 42 according to some researcher quoted by wikipedia. Take that as you will.
Not really, it was roughly on par with every other heavy bomber save the b-29 for obvious reasons. Not as fast or high flying as a b-24 but far more durable.
Uboat crews. Next.
>Uboat crews. Next.
Only later in the war.
My great uncle was a tail gunner in one of these. My cousin still has his jacket
Conducting a Komet test flight
at least with the B-17 it's only the enemy that's trying to kill you
X doubt
1/3 of all submariners (USN) were KIA, so that was actually the most dangerous US billet afaik.
I would say merchant shipman would be worse, at least you have the ability to fight back in a B-17
Nah man.
You just accept that you can't fight. You dodge, you damage control, and then you abandon ship.
>then you abandon ship
In most instances you cant, why do you think casualty rates were so high?
Uh, most cases they could, unless they just so happened to be an ammo ship or POL tanker. Survival rates went up lots as well when they started including designated rescue ships with the convoys
Sorry, thought you were referring to submarines due to the picture.
But yeah youre right as far as merchants go, was a different story there in many cases. Although certainly wasnt amazing, it was far better than other situations
>and then you abandon ship.
Into the freezing cold water of the north atlantic. I'd rather go quickly with a passing planes bullet in the b17 than slowly drown
p sure nothing beats being a russian or german on the eastern front
lay off the history memes
There is a great book called Courage and Air Warfare: The Allied Aircrew Experience of World War 2. I read it expecting a lot of excerpts from air crewmen about certain missions or interesting events. I was both surprised and horrified when it went into minute detail about air crew selection, crew loss rates, and the effects of stress.
It is also is the only book I read so far that every other sentence was a quote from another source, and every chapter mentions every source at the end of it, taking up at least 2 pages
The fighter pilot podcast did interviews with CAF pilots who fly the B-17s regularly and another pilot who flew Witchcraft regularly as well, their opinions are good for regular flight characteristics, while wartime memoirs and official logs the best for combat characteristics
looks interesting
thanks anon
Doing it over Japan would be pretty spooky
Your butthole got bombed and that was pretty nervewracking I bet
I, too, read B for Buster when I was in school.
The gunner is stored in the balls.
Had a crazy old uncle who was a tail gunner on a B-24. He said he circumnavigated the earth in one also!
>Killed a lot of jap too
8th AF lost more KIA than the entire USMC.
Bombing missions were no fricking joke anon. Even on a good day you can still expect a ton of casualties. One of my grandmothers brothers was a pilot for a B-17G, shotdown in 1944 and came out of a stalag as the only survivor of his crew, also the entire low squadron of his bomber group that day got shotdown as well
>retired as an air force colonel though, so there was that at least
my grandfather, a B-26 tail gunner in the 9th AF, was the only survivor of his gunnery class
Submarines, homosexual
1/5 us submarines were killed or uboat where its at 3/4