soc.history.war.world-war-ii

"David Thornley" wrote in message
news:13rsb7gkhq1r753@corp.supernews.com...
> In article ,
> Tero P. Mustalahti wrote:
>>
>>Actually the B-24 was in most respects the better of the two. It could
>>carry a heavier bomb load farther at higher altitude.
>
> Without bothering to look it up, it was my impression that the
> B-17s were usually higher than the B-24s on missions.

In Bomber Command the same situation
existed. The Stirlings couldn't fly as high
as the Halifaxes and Lancasters. The Halifaxes couldn't
fly as high as the Lancasters (and Manchesters IIRC).
The Stirlings were eventually sidelined for
raids into Germany, and eventually the early marks
of Halifaxes were stood down too.

> Some B-17 crewmen claimed that the best possible escort was
> Liberators in the same formation, since the Germans would attack
> them instead.

Lancaster crews thought the same thing
about the Stirlings and Halifaxes.