B-17 "All American" - Remarkable Story

[yellowjack]

IanH755 said:

Eric Mc said:

I've always understood it was anti-aircraft fire that brought it down.

I agree. Looking at the fuel spray - bigger hole on the top, smaller one underneath - it looks like an impact from underneath which exploded out of the top which matches with AA fire rather than the more common belief that it was a bomb dropped from above (plus there's no following bombs).

I slowed it down as much as I could, and am still unsure. Certainly looks like flak, because of the damage and the swift ignition of the fuel, but at the same time there's a stick of bombs clearly visible very close to the aircraft just behind the starboard wing. It's "jury still out" for me. Whichever was the cause, that B-24 spirals down quickly with little hope for any of the crew getting to an exit to bail out...

[aeropilot]

yellowjack said:

IanH755 said:

Eric Mc said:

I've always understood it was anti-aircraft fire that brought it down.

I agree. Looking at the fuel spray - bigger hole on the top, smaller one underneath - it looks like an impact from underneath which exploded out of the top which matches with AA fire rather than the more common belief that it was a bomb dropped from above (plus there's no following bombs).

I slowed it down as much as I could, and am still unsure. Certainly looks like flak, because of the damage and the swift ignition of the fuel, but at the same time there's a stick of bombs clearly visible very close to the aircraft just behind the starboard wing. It's "jury still out" for me. Whichever was the cause, that B-24 spirals down quickly with little hope for any of the crew getting to an exit to bail out...

A flak explosion that was in effect a direct hit on the wing spar box of a B-24 would fold the wings as per that clip, and I believe that's what happened in that clip from what I've read from post war research.
However, the same thing under the wing spar section of a B-17 would produce the same effect, and would (and indeed did) take down a B-17 in the same way.

The myth that the B-17 was substantially less fragile than a B-24 is just that, a myth, and largely continued from wartime miss-information and 'crew type loyality'. A lot of this stems from when the B-24 units were withdrawn from 8th AF ops under secrecy for the upcoming Ploesti oil raids, but the B-17 crews assumed it was because the B-24 couldn't hack it on ops compared to the B-17.
This has perpetrated ever since, much like eating carrots improves your eyesight!

[Eric Mc]

Maybe if you can provide dozens of images (photos or film) showing extremely badly damaged B-24s having made it back safely then we can understand with your viewpoint.

Or maybe there aren't that many?

Over to you.

I'm prepared to change my mind if you can provide this.

[aeropilot]

Eric Mc said:

Maybe if you can provide dozens of images (photos or film) showing extremely badly damaged B-24s having made it back safely then we can understand with your viewpoint.

Its not my personal viewpoint, its the viewpoint of most the eminent researchers/historians on the subject during the past couple of decades.

[Eric Mc]

aeropilot said:

Its not my personal viewpoint, its the viewpoint of most the eminent researchers/historians on the subject during the past couple of decades.

Well, I've given you the challenge. It's up to you to accept it.