OT: To get through one more week of boredom; favorite football and general quotes

[Fleet]

The B24 was built light for a reason. They needed to get higher than the B17and deeper and last i checked Boeing didnt have a clue how to do that at the time. So the B24 was mass produced and did what it was supposed to do. Completely wipe out Hitlers oil fields. The men who flew those planes knew it wasnt an easy task flying the aircraft. Ive met a lot of them and not one cried that it was too hard to fly. These were real men. And we couldn't have won the war without it. Its fucking WW2...if your looking for easy go to a different country.

[Fleet]

My father, yea the one who talked about morons, was a bombardier on a Liberator. As they headed back across the Channel after a bomb run on French coast sub bases, he went to the head. He said when he was finished, he opened the door and stepped out into a cornfield in Wales. Everyone was dead except for the pilot who died in his arms saying my father's name.

He came back to the states on the Queen Mary, with Churchill aboard, who was heading for a secret meeting with Roosevelt. Some secret! He said everyone knew Churchill was on board. Prior to the war my father was in the Jesuit Seminary for eight years. His mother was a Boston, Irish Catholic who thought her only son should be a priest. Can you imagine going from saving souls to dropping bombs and sending them to oblivion? He recovered at Fitzimmons Army Hospital in Denver where he met my mother who was a nurse. He spent the rest of his life teaching Latin, Greek, Russian and Algebra......

Tell your father thanks for his service. A lot of good men died. We were ranked 16th in military might before that war. This Count5ry stepped up and persevered because men made sacrifices.

[Den60]

The B24 was built light for a reason. They needed to get higher than the B17and deeper and last i checked Boeing didnt have a clue how to do that at the time. So the B24 was mass produced and did what it was supposed to do. Completely wipe out Hitlers oil fields. The men who flew those planes knew it wasnt an easy task flying the aircraft. Ive met a lot of them and not one cried that it was too hard to fly. These were real men. And we couldn't have won the war without it. Its fucking WW2...if your looking for easy go to a different country.

I don't believe I said anything negative about the B-24 other than it was difficult to fly. During that time we produced a lot of stuff because we could. Not all of it was the best, but we just wanted to send stuff to the front. We could do that because we were the only country in the world that could do something like that without compromising our supply, given our industrial might. Hell, my grandfather was tasked with getting rid of shit near the end of the war (off Truk Island and Hew York) so the economy wouldn't tank.

Nowadays we have to be much smarter now because China can do what we did back then though they lack the ability to create and rely on copying what others have done.

[Fleet]

I don't believe I said anything negative about the B-24 other than it was difficult to fly. During that time we produced a lot of stuff because we could. Not all of it was the best, but we just wanted to send stuff to the front. We could do that because we were the only country in the world that could do something like that without compromising our supply, given our industrial might. Hell, my grandfather was tasked with getting rid of shit near the end of the war (off Truk Island and Hew York) so the economy wouldn't tank.

Nowadays we have to be much smarter now because China can do what we did back then though they lack the ability to create and rely on copying what others have done.

Times were tough. We had women building these aircraft. Ford built close to 9000 Liberators and many died right after take off. Because they were using any part they could find to meet the 300 per month quota. I just take it personally when i hear people say the B24 wasnt that great of an aircraft. Becasue of the loss of life factor. To me it demeans the courage of the men who made the sacrifice knowing they were putting themselves in an aircraft not designed to sustain flak and turbulence. It carried a monster payload so it couldnt be built with heavy steal like the 17. Men knew that and still went up there. Still raised there hands to be part of the program. B24 served a great purpose in WW2 and its role was so vital to our success that i think its shortcomings...which were known prior to flight..outweigh its imperfections.

[Den60]

Times were tough. We had women building these aircraft. Ford built close to 9000 Liberators and many died right after take off. Because they were using any part they could find to meet the 300 per month quota. I just take it personally when i hear people say the B24 wasnt that great of an aircraft. Becasue of the loss of life factor. To me it demeans the courage of the men who made the sacrifice knowing they were putting themselves in an aircraft not designed to sustain flak and turbulence. It carried a monster payload so it couldnt be built with heavy steal like the 17. Men knew that and still went up there. Still raised there hands to be part of the program. B24 served a great purpose in WW2 and its role was so vital to our success that i think its shortcomings...which were known prior to flight..outweigh its imperfections.

Quite a few aircraft had issues back then. When it comes down to it, three really won the war. First was the C-47. Can't win a war if you can't supply the troops and that is what that aircraft did. Second, the B-17. It was consistently given the hardest targets to bomb during the war. Didn't live up to it's reputation as being a "fortress" but no other bomber came close to matching what it did during the way. Finally, the P-51. Goering said the war was lost when he saw that we could provide fighter escort all the way to the target, despite the fact that they brought online the ME-262 jet fighter.

[Fleet]

Obviously all 3 are wonderful aircraft. You wont find me saying any one aircraft was good or bad. They all fought towards the same goal. The B24 was built because the B17 had limitations. You take the B24 out of every theater it fought in...which was every theater..only one to do that....we have a really difficult time achieving the goals that were asked of our Military late in the war. Dont forget Reuben was also a Military adviser to FDR. He made it clear that when he was asked to design a plane to accomplish what the 17 couldn't...that it would be a plane with limitations.

By no means is it a glorified plane....you never hear about it..but if you ask WW2 historians about its contribution they will say it deserves a little respect. It probably shortened the war by 6 months. How many more live would we have lost in that time? Another 100k?

Every plane has its place...but saying any aircraft that had a large impact on the war wasn't a good plane? Wont find me saying that.

[Bolt-O]

I'm grateful for those who flew and manned those planes in WWII. Too bad that its becoming tougher to find and keep decent military pilots, at least for the Air Force. Not to get too far off topic, but did anyone else see that first-time X47 trap on the USS GHW Bush?

[Den60]

Times were tough. We had women building these aircraft. Ford built close to 9000 Liberators and many died right after take off. Because they were using any part they could find to meet the 300 per month quota. I just take it personally when i hear people say the B24 wasnt that great of an aircraft. Becasue of the loss of life factor. To me it demeans the courage of the men who made the sacrifice knowing they were putting themselves in an aircraft not designed to sustain flak and turbulence. It carried a monster payload so it couldnt be built with heavy steal like the 17. Men knew that and still went up there. Still raised there hands to be part of the program. B24 served a great purpose in WW2 and its role was so vital to our success that i think its shortcomings...which were known prior to flight..outweigh its imperfections.

I put crew survivability over capabilities. To be perfectly frank, it is the biggest reason our war in the Pacific was won so easily. We protected our pilots (self sealing fuel tanks, armor around the cockpit) whereas the Japanese went light with aircraft that maximized offense over defense. Japan quickly found out it couldn't replace pilots as fast as they were losing them whereas we kept our pilots alive even if they did get battle damage.

Like I said, the B-17 was easier to fly and could take a lot of battle damage and get home. Bomber crews only had to complete 25 missions so you definitely wouldn't want to burden them with an aircraft that was difficult to fly. Also, they put the 25 mission limit in for a reason. It was high risk (which the US took the lead on with daylight precision bombing). When looking at it from that perspective you want to give the crew the most confidence you can that the aircraft can suffer damage and get back home.

[Fleet]

I put crew survivability over capabilities. To be perfectly frank, it is the biggest reason our war in the Pacific was won so easily. We protected our pilots (self sealing fuel tanks, armor around the cockpit) whereas the Japanese went light with aircraft that maximized offense over defense. Japan quickly found out it couldn't replace pilots as fast as they were losing them whereas we kept our pilots alive even if they did get battle damage.

Like I said, the B-17 was easier to fly and could take a lot of battle damage and get home. Bomber crews only had to complete 25 missions so you definitely wouldn't want to burden them with an aircraft that was difficult to fly. Also, they put the 25 mission limit in for a reason. It was high risk (which the US took the lead on with daylight precision bombing). When looking at it from that perspective you want to give the crew the most confidence you can that the aircraft can suffer damage and get back home.

Thats fine. Just so you know the B24 was built with the knowledge it wasn't being made for survivability. It was made to end the war as quickly as possible. It had one purpose and that was to get higher, faster and farther than the B17. And carry a payload that would perform the destruction we needed on Germany that would ultimately shorten the war. Which means it had to sacrifice a lot of brute strength. The payload was 90% of its weight. You may not like the aircraft...but it did what it was supposed to do.

I think its important when your comparing the 2 to understand that if you removed the strength of the B17s outer structure and wrapped it in basically the same skin the B24 was built of....and flew it at heights and distances that the B24 did...without the fighter escorts that the B17 always had...there would have been alot more than 2000 B17 shots down

[Den60]

Thats fine. Just so you know the B24 was built with the knowledge it wasn't being made for survivability. It was made to end the war as quickly as possible. It had one purpose and that was to get higher, faster and farther than the B17. And carry a payload that would perform the destruction we needed on Germany that would ultimately shorten the war. Which means it had to sacrifice a lot of brute strength. The payload was 90% of its weight. You may not like the aircraft...but it did what it was supposed to do.

I think its important when your comparing the 2 to understand that if you removed the strength of the B17s outer structure and wrapped it in basically the same skin the B24 was built of....and flew it at heights and distances that the B24 did...without the fighter escorts that the B17 always had...there would have been alot more than 2000 B17 shots down

For me it is hard to justify not giving those that serve the best chance to not only succeed, but to survive. Like I have said, we were using a shotgun approach when it came to developing aircraft in WWII and not all of those developed were the best we could come up with, but we could make them a lot faster than anyone else.

[Fleet]

For me it is hard to justify not giving those that serve the best chance to not only succeed, but to survive. Like I have said, we were using a shotgun approach when it came to developing aircraft in WWII and not all of those developed were the best we could come up with, but we could make them a lot faster than anyone else.

Heres some numbers from the 8th.

3500 b24s 1146 losses 32% loss rate
7131 b17s 3000 losses 42% loss rate

And in the Euro Theater(ETO) for every 100 B24s that went up we lost 3. For every 50 B17s that went up we lost 3. Thats a 3%/6% loss rate. Easy to see that your giving the B24 a bad rap based on the numbers. The other thing to take into consideration is that the B17 was built a few years before the war. I believe in 35. Boeing had plenty of time to introduce it into the war as refined as they could get it.

The B24?? My grandpa had 2 weeks to come up with the design. And then mass produce it. He didint have the years to refine the product. And he still came in with a higher success rate than the 17.

I think your dislike for the B24 and calling it "Not a Great Airplane" is totally unwarranted based on the numbers ive given you. Considering your main thesis is loss of life.