B-17 vs. B-24 — A Fair Comparison

Two Legendary Bombers. Two Different Missions. One Unfair Debate.

Few aviation topics generate more debate than the comparison between the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress and the Consolidated B-24 Liberator. Both aircraft were icons of American airpower during World War II — powerful, rugged, and flown by tens of thousands of aircrew across multiple continents.

But the popular question “Which one was better?” misunderstands their purpose.

The B-17 and B-24 were not competitors.
They were complementary tools built for different strategic needs, designed in different eras, with different priorities, and deployed in different operational roles.

This page offers a fair, historically grounded comparison — not to declare a “winner,” but to explain why both aircraft earned their reputations and why the B-24, developed under Reuben H. Fleet’s leadership at Consolidated, became the most produced American heavy bomber in history.

---

Design Philosophy: Different Goals From the Start

B-17 Flying Fortress

• Designed in the early 1930s

• Focused on high-altitude stability and defensive durability

• Aimed at precision daylight bombing

• Strong airframe optimized for formation fighting

B-24 Liberator

• Designed later — in astonishingly little time (around 18 months)

• Focused on long range, high speed, and heavy payload

• Emphasized global reach and operational flexibility

• Advanced high-lift Davis wing gave unparalleled range and efficiency

The “which is better?” debate often forgets that the B-24 was a newer generation aircraft reflecting the needs of a rapidly changing global war.

---

Performance Comparison (Simplified)

The B-24 outperformed the B-17 in range, payload, and speed — the very traits needed for a global war spanning oceans.

The B-17 excelled in high-altitude European operations, especially early in the war.

---

The Roles Were Different — And That Matters

B-17s dominated early European strategic bombing

• Higher altitude

• Tight formation flying

• Heavy defensive armament

• Strong resistance to battle damage

B-24s dominated the global war

• Long-range missions in the Pacific

• Anti-submarine patrols over the Atlantic

• Low-altitude strikes (e.g., Ploesti — one of the most dangerous missions of the war)

• Cargo, transport, reconnaissance, and special operations variants

• Operating from primitive and extreme environments

One bomber was a fortress.
The other was a worldwide workhorse.

Different designs.
Different missions.
Different theaters.
Both essential.

---

Why the B-24 Developed a Mixed Reputation

Aviation historians note several reasons:

• It was harder to fly safely in bad conditions

• Its Davis wing required careful handling on takeoff and landing

• Crews found it hot, cramped, and mechanically loud

• It was produced in immense numbers, so more stories (good and bad) circulated

• The dramatic losses at Ploesti created a lasting emotional narrative

Yet these challenges existed because the B-24 was built for extreme missions the B-17 never had to perform:

• ocean-crossing patrol

• ultra-long-range bombing

• anti-submarine warfare

• remote island operations

• fuel transport over the Himalayas

• supply runs to distant Pacific outposts

The B-24’s versatility was unmatched.

---

Aviation Experts Agree: It’s Not a Fair Comparison

Even lifelong B-17 enthusiasts acknowledge:

• The B-17 was easier to fly…

• The B-24 went more places and did more types of missions

• The B-24 was faster and carried more

• The B-24 changed the war in the Atlantic and the Pacific

• The B-24 was designed and built in an astonishingly short time

The B-17 is often considered iconic.
The B-24 is considered indispensable.

Both reputations are well-earned.

---

What Reuben H. Fleet’s Company Achieved

Under Fleet’s leadership:

• The B-24 was conceived, designed, tested, and put into production with extraordinary speed

• Consolidated built aircraft that could operate across the entire world

• Long-range capability became a defining trait of American airpower

• Production scaled so rapidly that the B-24 became the most built heavy bomber in U.S. history

The Liberator was a bomber for a global war, not a regional one.

---

The Verdict: Which Was Better?

There is no true “winner.”

If you needed to survive brutal flak over Europe: you wanted a B-17.
If you needed to reach distant targets or patrol thousands of miles of ocean: you needed a B-24.

The real conclusion is:

The B-17 and B-24 were both great — because they were built for different purposes.

And the B-24’s unmatched range and production numbers show why it became the backbone of worldwide Allied operations.

---

A Final Human Note

Crews of both aircraft were brave beyond measure.
Thousands sacrificed everything in missions few civilians can imagine today.
Their stories — from Europe, Africa, India, the Pacific, and the Atlantic — deserve equal honor.

This page exists to celebrate them all.