Invincible Planes in GWX???

Part of the problem with the B-24 was with its thin Davis wing and deep bomb bays. The former meant that at high altitudes the Liberator was closer to stall than the Fortress and the wing itself was not as strong structurally. The latter meant that it was more difficult to escape from a crippled plane. The B-17's innate toughness, due to the nature of its construction tended to give more time to the crews.

For details see William H. Cook, The Road to the 707 where he, a Boeing engineer, goes into some detail on the design features that made the B-17 so damage resistant. There's probably some internet links out there somewhere as well.

As for armour, the RAF used a one pilot system, there was usually no co-pilot even on the long Coastal Command patrols. Aircrew took a very dim view of anything that might prevent the pilot from bringing them home. Until several years ago there was a ex RCAF Canso (PBY-5A Catalina to all the Americans out there) water bomber parked at Nanaimo Airport and I got a walk through tour one day. There was still armour plate behind the pilots seat and since the aircraft was a WW2 vet, it is unlikely that it was installed after the war.

Most bombers did have some protection for the flight deck so the blanket statement that Allied bombers had no armour is inaccurate. Dad told me that the First Pilot on Lancaster's and Whitley's had armour protection, he did 13-trips over Germany in Lancaster's an half dozen Coastal Command patrols in Whitley's as a navigator. I would get his testimony but he passed away in '99.

And lastly there is the biggest piece of empirical evidence that the 20mm was lacking. If it had been really effective there would have been no requirement to introduce the 37mm! First hand account repeatedly tell of RAF "Tired Bees" shrugging off gunfire and Liberators hit time and again only to come round for additional attacks. Weapons are only replaced when they cease to do their job, if the 20mm worked it would not have been supplemented by the Bofor's.

Last SH3 patrol an air attack developed while leaving Flensburg and my boat shot down four Liberators using "Engage Closest Target". This in GWX3 so if anything, aircraft are too easy to kill. But that's just my opinion.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Randomizer

Part of the problem with the B-24 was with its thin Davis wing and deep bomb bays. The former meant that at high altitudes the Liberator was closer to stall than the Fortress and the wing itself was not as strong structurally. The latter meant that it was more difficult to escape from a crippled plane. The B-17's innate toughness, due to the nature of its construction tended to give more time to the crews.

But talk is cheap, and it amazed me to discover that the loss rate of the B-24 was actually far better than that of the B-17.

Most bombers did have some protection for the flight deck so the blanket statement that Allied bombers had no armour is inaccurate. Dad told me that the First Pilot on Lancaster's and Whitley's had armour protection, he did 13-trips over Germany in Lancaster's an half dozen Coastal Command patrols in Whitley's as a navigator. I would get his testimony but he passed away in '99.

I don't argue that for a moment. US helicopters in Vietnam had armored seats for the pilot. It doesn't meant the chopper itself was "armored" or protected against gunfire. Most combat aircraft have some pilot protection. This doesn't make them "armored" either. There is little or nothing to protect the aircraft itself.

And lastly there is the biggest piece of empirical evidence that the 20mm was lacking. If it had been really effective there would have been no requirement to introduce the 37mm! First hand account repeatedly tell of RAF "Tired Bees" shrugging off gunfire and Liberators hit time and again only to come round for additional attacks. Weapons are only replaced when they cease to do their job, if the 20mm worked it would not have been supplemented by the Bofor's.

Again I agree. Planes, like ships, have a lot of empty space where a hit does no effective damage. I was only talking about literal armor, and now I'm not sure why I was doing that.

The bottom line is still the same: staying on the surface to fight airplanes was a bad idea, and it should be in the game.

Last SH3 patrol an air attack developed while leaving Flensburg and my boat shot down four Liberators using "Engage Closest Target". This in GWX3 so if anything, aircraft are too easy to kill. But that's just my opinion.

I wouldn't know. I've never stuck around to fight them, even in the stock game.

But talk is cheap, and it amazed me to discover that the loss rate of the B-24 was actually far better than that of the B-17.

It shouldn't. The Liberator benefited from some four-years of improvements in aerodynamics, engine and fuel technology between the 1935 Army Air Corps requirements that led to the Boeing 299/Y1B-17 and the 1939 contract that became the B-24.

That same Davis wing that helped make the Liberator relatively fragile compared to the Fortress also facilitated greater speed, payload and range, things you wanted in a strategic bomber.

All technology is about trade-offs and compromises, that's why these popular but silly "Best Of" lists are generally rubbish.

As for the Flensburg thing, I didn't want to fight it out either but not much one can do in a Type IX and 11-metres of water...

[Sailor Steve]

It amazed me because I bought into the myth of the "indestructible fortress". It's just like the "flaming coffins" nickname given to the DH-4 in World War 1. The plane was no more flammable than any other Great War aircraft, which of course isn't saying much.