B-17 "All American" 1943

[Subdeacon Joe]

https://vintageaviationnews.com/warbird-articles/the-real-story-of-the-b-17-all-american.html

 

The usual story that you see has the tail being held on by parachute cords and something cobbled together with pieces of the 109 bodged in to hold the empennage on, and the ship returning to England. Not quite, but still impressive. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tex Jones, SASS 2263]

They were "Fortresses", and the men (boys) who flew them were heroes.  I wonder whether the tail gunner was OK?

Edited November 16, 2025 by Tex Jones, SASS 2263

[Chantry]

The B-17 was seriously over-built and could take a lot of damage.

 

Click on the links to see damage photos from different sections of the planes:

 

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/contents.htm

Edited November 16, 2025 by Chantry

[Subdeacon Joe]

1 hour ago, Tex Jones, SASS 2263 said:

They were "Fortresses", and the men (boys) who flew them were heroes.  I wonder whether the tail gunner was OK?

 

Read the account of it at the linked site.  But,  yes, he was fine.   

"When the ambulances arrived after the engines were switched off, Bragg calmly reported, “No business, Doc.” From then on, Sam Sarpoulus was known among the crew as “Lonesome Sam.”"

 

Amusing anecdote :

 

"Three sightseers from another crew went inside the aircraft on the ground to inspect the damage. One of them turned to Sarpouls and asked, “Say, why didn’t she break in two?” Feeling slightly guilty about coming back home, Sarpoulus was about to respond when the tail broke in two on the ground under the weight of the three men."

 

The last of the article talks about ine that didn't make it back,  and some contradictions in the stories

 

 

 

 

[Trailrider #896]

According to one account, the B-24 crews would brag that their plane could carry more bombload, and was faster than the -17. To which the B-17 crews would reply, "Yeah, but a B-17 will get you home more reliably!"

[Chantry]

43 minutes ago, Trailrider #896 said:

According to one account, the B-24 crews would brag that their plane could carry more bombload, and was faster than the -17. To which the B-17 crews would reply, "Yeah, but a B-17 will get you home more reliably!"

 

The very thing that made the B-24 faster with a heavier bomb load, was it's weakness, the shoulder mounted wings with their high wing loading was far more subject to structural failure caused by battle damage.

[Subdeacon Joe]

1 hour ago, Trailrider #896 said:

According to one account, the B-24 crews would brag that their plane could carry more bombload, and was faster than the -17. To which the B-17 crews would reply, "Yeah, but a B-17 will get you home more reliably!"

 

13 minutes ago, Chantry said:

 

The very thing that made the B-24 faster with a heavier bomb load, was it's weakness, the shoulder mounted wings with their high wing loading was far more subject to structural failure caused by battle damage.

 

Odd thing, real world numbers don't seem to support that.  Here's an AI Overview of it.

 

The B-17 had a slightly higher loss rate than the B-24 in the European Theater, but the comparison is complicated by mission assignment and theater of operations. For the Eighth Air Force, the B-17's loss rate was approximately 1.66% while the B-24's was 1.26%. However, this was influenced by the fact that B-17s were often assigned to the most heavily defended targets, while B-24s were sometimes used on less challenging missions, especially in the Mediterranean Theater. When comparing sorties in the same theater and on similar missions, the loss rates were very close. 

• Eighth Air Force: In the Eighth Air Force, the B-17 had a higher loss rate (1.66%) compared to the B-24 (1.26%).
• Mission Assignment: This difference is partly explained by mission assignments. B-17s were often used for the toughest, most heavily defended targets, while B-24s were sometimes deployed on easier missions, which impacted their loss rates.
• Theater of Operations: When B-24s were used on the same types of missions in the same theaters as B-17s, their loss rates were more comparable. For example, in the 15th Air Force, where B-17 and B-24 groups often flew on the same missions, the loss rates were closer, with B-17s seeing 192.6 tons dropped per loss compared to 106.5 tons per loss for the B-24 in some analyses.
• Overall: Ultimately, the loss rate comparison is nuanced. While overall statistics show a higher B-17 loss rate in the Eighth Air Force, the type of missions flown significantly affected these numbers. 

[watab kid]

".... Ultimately, the loss rate comparison is nuanced. While overall statistics show a higher B-17 loss rate in the Eighth Air Force, the type of missions flown significantly affected these numbers. ...."

 

this was what i had thought , the missions they were sent on reflected the losses 

[Chantry]

Everything I've read was that pilots and crew preferred the B-17 over the B-24.   No account I've read so far has B-24 pilots and crews showing the same affection for their airplane that the B-17 crews had for theirs.

 

The accounts of experienced pilots who flew the B-24 in non bombing roles was that they did not like the aircraft at all. 

 

One flew and helped develop the routes used to ferry aircraft to England by air.  He said the B-24 wings iced up and in general didn't like the plane as it wasn't easy to fly. He flew the C-47, PBY Catalina, a number of smaller aircraft.  I'll have to look later to see if he flew the B-17 and what he thought about it.  >   Ferry Command & North Atlantic Cat by Don McVicar

 

.  The other account was a pilot who flew air drop missions in Burma, his view was that the B-24 was too fast and couldn't get out of some of the narrow valleys were the air drop took place.  He greatly preferred flying the slower, unarmed C-47. > The Moonlight War by Terrence O'Brien

 

If I was forced to choose which aircraft I had to flying bombing missions in over Germany, I would choose the B-17 every single time.

Edited November 17, 2025 by Chantry

[Linn Keller, SASS 27332, BOLD 103]

My mentor, back when I still fought fire, flew B17s "for real."
He'd put in his twenty missions and was still flying when the Old Man called him in.
He said Hoss was being transferred to B24s.
Hoss told him no.
Actually he told him "HELL NO, SIR!"

The B24 was a wet wing: tanks in the wings, but they were vented into the fuselage.
Hoss told about taking off for a mission, watching aircraft stack up in their spiral formations, and a random B24 would detonate in midair.
17s didn't do that.

[Stump Water]

Ran across this this morning...

 

The XB-38 Flying Fortress was a single example conversion of a production B-17E Flying Fortress, testing whether the Allison V-1710 V type engine could be substituted for the standard Wright R-1820 radial engine during early World War II. 

 

XB-38

[Trailrider #896]

The B-17 was overdesigned, especially in the wing structure, compared to the Davis wing in the B-24. This made the -24 faster and able to carry more payload, but meant it wasn't as able to sustain damage. There is a movie of a B-24 on a raid purportedly to be Ploesti, but was somewhere else, where the left wing caught a flack burst in the wing root. The wing came off and the bird rolled over, with probably not enough altitude for the crew to get out. 

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

52 minutes ago, Trailrider #896 said:

The B-17 was overdesigned, especially in the wing structure, compared to the Davis wing in the B-24. This made the -24 faster and able to carry more payload, but meant it wasn't as able to sustain damage. There is a movie of a B-24 on a raid purportedly to be Ploesti, but was somewhere else, where the left wing caught a flack burst in the wing root. The wing came off and the bird rolled over, with probably not enough altitude for the crew to get out. 

That famous and over-used bit of film came from a Pacific Theater mission. 

[Cowtown Scout, SASS #53540 L]

My Dad was a Co-Pilot on B-24s in the 15th Air Force, 450th Bomb Group, 721st Squadron stationed in Italy.  On 29 December 1944 the B24J “Rage in Heaven” he was Co-Pilot on was hit by Flak near Manduria Italy. The crew bailed out, 1 was KIA, 8 were eventually captured, Dad managed to evade capture with the help of the Italian Underground and was finally repatriated 14 May 1945.

This is the Mission they were on when the plane was shot down – Brenner Pass Railroad Loop www.450thbg.com/real/s2/1944/december/29december.shtml

Crew info on B-24 “Rage in Heaven” shot down over Italy Official Home of the 450th Bomb Group Memorial Association (450thbg.com)

Info on Dad with photos that I provided the webmaster (because they had him incorrectly listed as POW) and webmaster added comments and cropped some photos
Official Home of the 450th Bomb Group Memorial Association (450thbg.com)

Link to main page of web site Official Home of the 450th Bomb Group Memorial Association (450thbg.com)

Edited November 17, 2025 by Cowtown Scout, SASS #53540 L