My now deceased father flew as a bombadier in a B-24 Liberator on Missions over Italy and Germany (I think from Corsica, but cannot remember for certain). Anyway, one of the things I remember him saying was that good metal was in great demand because people sought it to “sit on” while on missions to avoid being shot in the butt (from anti-aircraft guns I guess). He said that in one Poker game he witnessed that a good piece of flat metal was used to call a $50.00 dollar raise. The recent reports of American soldiers in Iraq getting in trouble for taking metal from Iraqi scrapyards made me think about this and raised several questions I had never before thought to ask:
Was this a common practice during the War?
Why would “another” piece of metal make any difference with regard to a projectile that had already penetrated the fusalage of the airplane?
Also, although this is not the OP question why is it that most of the movies and documenteries I see concerning WWII bombing talk about B-19’s and B29’s, but don’t mention the B-24? Was this a rare or “booring” aircraft?
I don’t know the answer to your question overall, although I must say in decades of reading descriptions of flying bombers in WWII I have never heard of people adding ad hoc bum armour before. One would have to wonder about the utility, given that flak could hit you from any side.
But one point I’d make is that there is nothing inherently silly in thinking that a piece of solid steel plate might protect you where the skin of the aircraft would not. The skin of the aircraft would be of fabric or aluminium or something else very thin and light. Any flak would go through it like tissue paper. It is quite conceivable that a piece of steel plate might protect you against some flak, but it is dead certain that the mere skin of the aircraft never would.
My husband works at the Boeing plant in Renton WA where the B-17’s and B-29s were built. He’s gotten quite interested in the history, so has a little insight.
First of all, he directed me to acouple of good web sites giving a little history.
I think the reason you don’t hear that much about them is they were built by, a now defunct, manufacturer called Consolidated/Consolidated Vultee/Corvair. Boeing, on the other hand, is always willing to tell you they’re aircraft won the war (which ever war you want to know about) The B-24 was definately not rare, or boring. One of the books we have, said the surest way to start an argument was for a former B-24 pilot to “tell an old B-17 jockey that the Liberator was a better airplane than the Flying Fortress”*
He just sent me this and this for yet more information.
As far as the extra metal, my WAG would be, they just thought if a little’s good, alot’s better. Remember, weight was, and is an important consideration in aircraft design.
*Legend & Legacy; The Story of Boeing and Its People by Robert J. Serling.
This page, unsurprisingly, is about the B-24, and has this interesting passage (bolding mine):
“despite progressive modification to the armour the internal protection was so poor that, both in Europe and over the Pacific Ocean, numerous waist gunners were killed by shells entering at the nose and often killing the pilots en route. Some pilots took to carrying slabs of sheet armour held in front of their bodies by hand during crucial periods.”
I agree with picunurse about why the B-24 seems to be (unfairly) neglected - B-17s and B-24s were about as common and had very similar roles (in fact I’ve often wondered why the USAAF didn’t accept one long-range four engine bomber instead of two just to make training, provision & maintenance simpler).
Incidentally, the RAF’s Coastal Command used the B-24’s very long range to help patrol the mid-Atlantic, where no other aircraft could reach, so the B-24 can make at least one claim that the B-17 can’t.
There were many local, um, “modifications” to combat aircraft, and adding some local armor plate would naturally have been one.
I agree that Boeing did a much better PR job than Consolidated, despite the B-24 being more numerous and having delivered more bomb tonnage than the B-17. Another factor after the war might be the movie and tV series “Twelve O’Clock High”, which for many defined the USAAF experience in Europe. Forts, not Libs - and the Fort was just better-looking anyway.
The anti-aircraft shell didn’t have to penetrate the aircraft; it just had to be close. While a direct hit would be a good way of bringing an airplane down (there’s some famous footage of a B-24 being hit in the wing root), spraying a bunch of jagged metal around that might kill or incapacitate the pilots would be another way. ‘Bum armour’ would be a good way to protect one’s self from a near eaxplosion beneath the aircraft. Holding a metal plate in front of you during a critical moment would protect the torso. (How did they do that? One guy protects himself while the other guy flies? Put the metal over your chest and reach around it?)
Minor nitpick: Doped-fabric skins were common in WWI, but by WWII were very rare. No major combat aircraft of the US use this typed of covering for the fuselage. Aluminum, however, was widespread.
Body armor for flight crews that I know of consisted of a type of chain-mail “flak jacket” a sort of vest that came in two halves snapped together in the back and tied in front.
In the B-26 the pilot’s seat was surrounded by an armor shell but the co-pilot’s was not. It was common practive for people to put a half flak-jacket under the seat cushion. Really small protection but I guess it had a nice placebo effect.
In his book The Martin B-26 Marauder, J.K. Havener recounts the story of a pilot who noticed that he had to keep rolling in more and more nose-down trim. He finally got out of his easy chair long enough to look into the problem. He discovered that his tail gunner had accumulated a bunch of flack jackets, would go to the flight line early on the day of his mission and line the tail section with the jackets around his rear turret.
I have also heard of the phenomenon the OP describes, and of passengers sitting on their helmets.
It is, sometimes, but it’s generally used in a sort of playful or humorous context. “Arse”, on the other hand, is never ever used unless you are deliberately putting on a British accent.
I suppose I ought to add that the back part of the B-26 pilot’s seat had the armor. There was a noticeable lack of armor in front.
The addition of makeshift armor, such as the flak jackets, although probably not too effective is a natural thing. When you are getting shot at anything, a blade of grass, a piece of paper or even your hands over you eyes can seem like protection.
Princhester’s “tissue paper” description aside airplane skins are pretty fragile, typically aluminum alloy 1/16" thick. It’s fairly trivial to punch through one with a screwdriver. Aircraft made of hot riveted 1/4" plate steel exhibited poor climb performance with available engines so aluminum was preferred.
I am mildly reminded at this point of the Lockheed interceptor they made out of solid titanium. Proof of concept that later led to the SR-71. Eventually, it got towed out to a nuclear test site. After the explosion, it was the only thing recognizable. Darn near undamaged, as I recall.
Far as ass protection, I can chime in that the same thing was done in Vietnam in the Hueys. Flak-Jackets, metal plate, what have you. Once again, thin skin, fat ass. It’s not so psychological as it seems… a shot to the legs will hurt… but flak up your ass can go all the way to your chin.
737 final assembly, interior functional test. I saw in another thread you said your hubby is a firefighter so I would assume he is part of the Boeing fire department. The only time we see them is when the Vesda fire system is activated or someone gets hurt.
Lots of interesting facts on B-24’s and their crews can be found in:
The Wild Blue : The Men and Boys Who Flew the B-24s Over Germany 1944-45
by Stephen E. Ambrose
I read it and liked it.
Few points I remember from various books. The B-24 was not beloved as the B-17 as it was a difficult plane to fly, and had a relatively undeserved bad reputation early on. Also the “sitting on extra armour” also protected the quite vulnerable wedding tackle from flak bursts underneath the plane, a point of considerable importance to the young aircrews.
The B-24 was definately not rare, or boring. One of the books we have, said the surest way to start an argument was for a former B-24 pilot to “tell an old B-17 jockey that the Liberator was a better airplane than the Flying Fortress”*
