The B-24 Liberator was a better bomber than the B-17 Flying Fortress. There, I said it.

The B-24 Liberator was a better bomber than the B-17 Flying Fortress.

There, I said it.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The B-24 is like 6 years newer than the B-17 was, so yeah.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The B-17 had considerable upgraded variants during its service life. The Consolidated was a pseudo-flying boat probably easier to mass produce but a dead end. And probably that's why it was so produced, Boeing was busy with their B-29 superbomber, Consolidated wasn't making anything else -flying boats aside-.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Consolidated was working on the B-32 as an alternative in case the somewhat riskier B-29 didn't get its problems solved in time.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the B-24 was a better flyer overall- better range+payload, faster, on paper it made better stats which is why the Army shilled it so hard.
    But it was much harder to operate meaning crew fatigue became a factor in planning sorties. it leaked fuel and it was not robust
    the B-17 could not only fly above existing AAA but had a vastly higher survivability rate when it did run into flak or enemy fighters.
    The B-24 couldn't operate safely in ETO until air superiority was acheived, that's why it flew alongside the B-17 in ETO.
    In the Pacific it fared better because of the longer range and better flying, and was even used as a naval patrol aircraft but unlike the B-17. it never saved a life and nobody loved flying it so its always going to be a runner up.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >better than b17
      It really wasnt..

      This guy knows

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      My grandpa was in charge of maintaining the guns on a b24 doing ASW off Britain during Ww2.

      Gramps is front row, second on the right.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        rare pepe collected

        I think it’s pretty well agreed upon the liberator was leaps and bounds better than the 17. The 17 is just aesthetic

        suits loved it, troops hated it

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        By virtue of being lucky enough to have the most stable living situation I inherited the family photo collection.. I need to get these digitized but these are some of the oldest pictures I have from my grandparents.. they got married right before my grandpa shipped out.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I remember my grandpa saying they had a single tail variant called a privateer.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Just gonna post the photos I have. Wish I had one of the whole plane, but to be honest just the ones I have feel neat. This is the same view as the oil leak photo, and I bet the same window as the picture where they’re looking out.. I’d be willing to bet it was where his post on the plane was.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Just a wing.. I should probably look up where the hell the Atlas Mountains actually are….

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Why do I feel like at any point in history airplane mechanics give 0 fricks if they’re in the way.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Same pose, cooler jackets.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Not plane related but the signs great.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Last pic, the rest are tourism related, technically this is a tourism pic, but the barrage blimp is pretty neat.

                Sorry to hijack, but I haven’t looked at these in a while and if anyone’s likely to appreciate them, this seems like a likely place.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Can't blame the guy, gotta get the job done. A war to fight and all. And now we're here talking about him. Thanks for sharing anon

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yup, just funny how some things never change. Figured these would fit in well here. One weird thing I remember my grandpa telling me was that the reason the centerline turrets have 2 machine guns and the sides just have one is that the center mounted ones have the guns aimed at different points, one is high, one is low, with the bullet is spinning, if you fire towards the right of the plane the spin against the oncoming air will make the bullet rise, but when you fire towards the left side the bullet will drop. They used two guns so that regardless of side, one of them was aimed fairly true.. the side guns didn’t have that problem since they couldn’t switch sides, so they were single mounts.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That's interesting and makes a lot of sense. Something I've never considered. They would zero the guns on the ground right? I assume without the the engines running.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                From what I remember when he was explaining it when I was like 13 you aimed on to be something like 50 feet high at 200 yards, and one to be 50 feet low.. the airspeed of the plane affected it as well as the angle of the gun away from the direction of flight that you were shooting.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                But yeah I believe you did that on the ground. Feels like forgotten knowledge. Ground vehicle mounted stuff isn’t gonna be affected like that, and we don’t really do centerline mounted turrets any more on airplanes..

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Ballistic computers probably accounted for a lot of deviations in convergence and elevation post cold war. Convergence still comes up often enough in discussion but I've never considered different guns having different zeros based on the forces imparted by propellers. I believe it though, very interesting and thanks again for sharing.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I always thought it was funny picturing some engineer getting really into figuring out some kind of compensating sight locked to the rotation of the turret… lots of gears and fragile bits… and someone with more sense coming along and saying “just put two 50’s in”

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No kidding. P47 on escort missions with 8 wing mounted .50s, something is going to land, zero be damned.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                iirc, standard procedure was to have slightly different ranges for each pair of guns
                so that you would have fairly balanced firepower over a few hundred meters to make it easier to hit your target

                but a few crazy aces would all converge their gun at the same point, meaning their firepower rapidly degraded if the enemy was even slightly further or nearer
                but ensured a kill from the sheer mass of fire at that point

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Not forgotten, still being used to this day. In helicopter aerial gunnery this phenomenon is compensated with training, having the door gunner adjust their aim for the side of the helicopter they are on Kentucky windage style, as the gun and gunner will almost always remain on their assigned side of the helicopter. So Left Left Low / Right Right High.

                The same couldn't be reliably done on ball turrets of the bombers, as the turret would be expected to slew in any direction during the flight, and even the best trained gunners could lose their point of reference to the airplane during the heat of an engagement. They may have to even slew from one side of the airplane to the complete opposite in the middle of engaging a single target even.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Correct, the Navy used two versions of the B-24 design and gave them their own names.
            PB4Y-1 (patrol bomber, 4th from Consolidated, variant 1) was basically just a regular B-24 in Navy paint. The PB4Y-2 was called Privateer, and it had a lot of changes including the tall single tail and deletion of the turbochargers (maritime patrol is done at low to medium altitude).
            Neat photos.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The B-24 couldn't operate safely in ETO until air superiority was acheived
      Neither could the B-17. They both got absolutely minced in unescorted daylight raids, but the B-17 couldn't even carry a decent payload for its trouble.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Plus ten men lost for every one shot down usually. It still blows my mind that 8th Air Force alone lost more men than the entire USMC. You were a lot safer as a front-line rifleman at Iwo Jima or Okinawa than a crewman on a deep raid into Germany.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >the B-17 could not only fly above existing AAA but had a vastly higher survivability rate when it did run into flak or enemy fighters.
      So it can fly above AAA or it can better withstand FlaK fields, which one is it?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That doesn't have be an either/or point anon. You can both have the capacity to flight high and also not currently be high enough to avoid flak for whatever reason. It took then fricking ages to get up to altitude.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >it can fly above AAA or it can better withstand FlaK fields, which one is it
        both. the B-17 was legendary for the amount of damage it could sustain and still limp home or crashland without killing its crew, and it had a service ceiling of 35000 feet so if weather permitted it could avoid AA.
        one of the worst raids for the B-17 (schweinfurt) saw 70% of the wing sustain damage from AA and enemy interceptors and return safely to base (20% shot down, 10% undamaged)

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The B-24 was indeed overall "better" than most variants of the B-17, but for me the YB-40 is still the GOAT.
    >Early enough into the war where fighter escorts were unavailable for daylight raids deep into Germany
    >8th Airforce says fine we'll do it our fricking selves
    >16 guns with extra turrets
    >bomb bay converted to ammo stowage
    >armor plating across all manned positions
    >The fricking thing weighed 2 tons more than a fully laden B-17 with bombs
    I've been running a Target for Today campaign and I'm 8 missions in, most of my crew are aces and we're actively seeking out fights with the krauts lol.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      YB-40 sounds cool but doesn't seem to have been very successful.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        blows my mind that they even tried it with the B29

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >blows my mind that they even tried it with the B29
          linky-poo?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >but doesn't seem to have been very successful.
        Those two extra tons on top of a fully loaded B-17 (which they often weren't) probably meant it couldn't match the range or speed of the bombers it was supposed to be escorting, rendering it rather useless.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Target for Today campaign and I'm 8 missions in, most of my crew are aces
      kek, revenge for all those lost radios

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I miss momma radio's massive mammaries

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I miss momma radio's massive mammaries

        I love how the radio thing's become an inside joke when talking about B-17's.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The concept sounded good on paper, but it didn't work. Once the bombers dropped their payloads, the "escort bombers" could no longer keep up with them for the return trip.

      The correct answer was to use fighters with drop tanks, but the Bomber Generals preferred losing bombers to using fighters.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Audre
    that"s not a real name

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >bigger number
    >better

    Simple as.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    My grandpa was a tailgunner in a B24. He was involved in the Ploesti raids. He was one step away from bailing out at one point during a miscommunication about lightening the plane. His plane had a large gaping hole in the fuselage at one point, and three engines were scrapped after one mission. I wish I had the chance to ask him about it more. I am told he spoke very little of it until later in his life.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    german fighters also liked the b24 more. for some reason it was easier to shoot down.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >for some reason it was easier to shoot down
      much lower ceiling and and they tended to stop flying and crash when you shot at them, which was not the case with the B 17

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >seething euromutt seethes about his liberation

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Seethe thirdie, you hate us cuz you aint us. The us really just wants to trade, but brownoids just want to be violent with impudence and are pissed that the us wont let them.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Maybe if you frogs hadn't surrendered, we wouldn't need to bomb you.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    B-17 was built to defend USA from enemy ships.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    From what I understand, B-24 took advantage of new high efficiency airfoils to achieve its performance. This gave it impressive stats on paper, but the downside was it was a bear to fly and anything that spoiled the airfoil (ice, damage, etc.) severely hampered its performance. Combined with a lower service ceiling, these all factored into its rather poor survivability reputation.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >new high efficiency airfoil
      the Davis wing. yeah on paper it was great but in practice the B-24 had to climb to some altitude, hit airspeed and then descend or it would burn like 50% more fuel than if it went in a straight line.
      Again, excellent on paper, finicky bullshit IRL. Surprised Germans didn't invent it first, that's their MO

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm sorry to cut you off here, but the B-26 was the best bomber of the war

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      ...but during the war it was called the A-26.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      ...but during the war it was called the A-26.

      Fellas are we talking about the a-26 invader or the b-26 marauder?

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I think it’s pretty well agreed upon the liberator was leaps and bounds better than the 17. The 17 is just aesthetic

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    If you keep talking we can always arrange for another dose of freedom you homosexual

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    B-24s with ASV radar and leigh lights pretty much single handed won the battle of the Atlantic and did more for the war effort than any B-17. There were so many B-24s flying over the Bay of Biscay every night that RAF mosquitos were able to farm easy ace status by shooting down all the clueless Ju-88s sent to target the Liberators.

    You got a free cheese sandwich after you killed your 5th german aristocrat Ju-88 pilot.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    its got 10 more B's

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    24 is a greater number than 17. you used logic.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >because reasons

    Thats a mighty fine wind youve sown there boy

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It looks better in my opinion, I like the twin tail.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    ENTER

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Do you think an American WW2 show will ever be able to use anything but B17s, B24s, P40s, and P51s? I feel like peoples' heads would explode if they were suddenly exposed to B24s, B26s, and B32s. Not to mention P47s and P39s.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >suddenly exposed to B24
      if you look at pulp fiction like comics and trashy novels after WWII the B-17 is the symbol of the European war, but the B-24 and its split tail are the symbol of the Pacific also the P-47 and the C-47 are at least as famous as the ones you listed also the Curtiss C-5s are pretty fricking famous

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      bruh

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Red Tails did P-47s.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        As did Memphis Belle if I'm not mistaken, called the "Little friends" .

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    B17 was among the worst fronline bombers in 1944.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *