Changes to Bomber Survivability Feedback and Discussion

[HooFnET]

Alright guys, I’m not a high-level researcher, but I managed to gather all verified photos of damaged B-17s directly from official military archives. I kindly ask you to compare the damage visible in these photos with the claims you’ve been making. Every single one of these photos is fully authenticated, and most of these aircraft successfully landed back at their airfields with these exact levels of battle damage.

Also, if you’re wondering why I’m only sharing photos of B-17s, it’s because the entire discussion has been revolving around the B-17 from the beginning, and all the previous photos and videos shared were focused on it as well. That is the sole reason why I am sharing these specific photos

And I would especially like to extend my heartfelt thanks to RoyalWaffles. Despite people who have ignored and dismissed what we’ve been arguing and defending on these forums for years just for their own interests, they continued to stand up for it and kept the topic alive. Once again, thank you very much

I wanted to start with a special photo. As you can read in the description below, this is the damage inflicted by a Messerschmitt Me 262—most likely caused by a Minengeschoss round. Despite this massive damage, this aircraft successfully landed back at its airfield.

From what I’ve seen elsewhere, it would take about 2 hits for it to end up in this state

The battle damaged tail of a B-17 Flying Fortress (N8-Q, serial number 44-6899) of the 398th Bomb Group damaged by an Me 262 at Manston, 10 April 1945. Handwritten caption on reverse: ‘46899 N8-Q 600BS 10/4/45 Me262 damage - no casualties. Manston a/f. Lt. Shaffer. 398BG. USAAF 60. Credit Archer.’
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205368108

The battle damaged cockpit of a B-17 Flying Fortress nicknamed “Old Bill” of the 305th Bomb Group, May 1943. Written on slide casing: ‘20 mm damage, 5/43 Old Bill.’
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205365967

The damaged fuselage of a B-17 Flying Fortress of the 91st Bomb Group. Official caption printed on front: “(GE-142-1-467)(11-6-44)(Battle Damage).” Handwritten caption on reverse: ‘48135 91[BG], 6/11/44.’
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205363721

The wing of a B-17 Flying Fortress of the 351st Bomb Group, damaged by 20 mm cannon fire from a Focke-Wulf 190 during a raid over Anklam, 9 October 1943. Handwritten caption on reverse: ‘(10) Damage to our right wing by 20mm from FW-190 over Anklam, Oct. 9, 1943.’
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205364774

this is another one of those exceptional photos. This photo shows a B-17 that landed with severe damage across almost its entire left wing, having lost an estimated 60% of its engine power on that engine prior to landing. While this aircraft made an emergency landing before it could reach an airfield, it clearly shows that it didn’t just disintegrate in the air like a piece of LEGO

An airman inspects the damaged wing of a B-17 Flying Fortress which suffered a ground collision. Image stamped on reverse: ‘Associated Press.’ [stamp], ‘Passed for publication 11 Oct 1943.’ [stamp] and ‘287788.’ [censor no.] Printed caption on reverse: ‘“FORT” CRASH-LANDS, COLLIDES WITH ANOTHER. Associated Press photo shows: This is what happened to the wing of a grounded Flying Fortress when one of the bombers damaged in the great raid on the Polish port of Gdynia, crashed into it while making a forced landing on its return.’
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205371550[image]

Ground crew of the 306th Bomb Group inspect the damaged tail of a B-17 Flying Fortress. Passed for publication 15 Jul 1943. Handwritten caption on reverse: ‘17/7/43.’ Printed caption on reverse: ‘Fortress Comes Home With Tail Almost Severed. After a recent raid on enemy territory, a Flying Fortress bomber managed to limp home with its tail almost severed. Photo Shows:- Inspecting the damaged Fortress bomber on its home airfield after its return.’ On reverse: Planet News Ltd, US Army Press Censor ETO and US Army General Section Press & Censorship Bureau [Stamps].
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205364453

The damaged tail of a B-17 Flying Fortress (serial number 42-39775) nicknamed “Frenesi” of the 94th Bomb Group. Printed caption on reverse: ‘Damaged Fortress Gets Home. Associated Press Photo Shows:- The right elevator of the Flying Fortress “Frenesi” after it had been torn by a 20mm cannon shell in the great raid on the Me110 assembly plant at Brunswick, Germany, on January 11. FL/AB 263982. 14-1-44-Y.’ On reverse: Associated Press and US Army General Section Press & Censorship Bureau [Stamps].
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205363896

Damage caused by an 88mm or 105mm Flak shell. Despite this, the aircraft still managed to land
Also, the aircraft in the photo below returned from the exact same mission

A B-17 Flying Fortress of the 351st Bomb Group damaged by flak shell, 27 September 1944. Handwritten caption on reverse: ‘27/9/44, 294.’
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205364777

A B-17 Flying Fortress of the 351st Bomb Group damaged by flak shell, 27 September 1944. Handwritten caption on reverse: ‘105mm flak hit - blew out ball and waist. 27/9/44.’
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205364776

Airmen of the 379th Bomb Group insepct the damaged tail of a B-17 Flying Fortress (serial number 42-39789). Handwritten caption on reverse: ‘379th Kimbolton. Mission accomplished, an amazing display of courage + skill by Second Lieutenant William Elliot, USAF (8th) from Penca, Ohkla, he bought his battered Flying Fort back from Bremen to land in England with left horizontal stabiliser shorn off, rudder smashed beyond use, one engine dead + 5 gun positions knocked out of position.’
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205369747

An airman of the 398th Bomb Group inspects the damaged tail of a B-17 Flying Fortress (serial number 44-8811).
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205361742

A British enlisted man inspects the battle damaged tail of a B-17 Flying Fortress of the 100th Bomb Group, August 1944. Image stamped on reverse: ‘42803.’ [censor no.] A printed caption was previously attached to the reverse, however this has been removed. Handwritten caption on reverse: ‘8-44.’
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205383329

An extensively flak-damaged B-17 Flying Fortress of the 327th Bomb Squadron, 92nd Bomb Group. Official caption on image: “(GAD67-2-92) (24-8-44) FLAK 31713.”
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205363763

Regarding this photo, I want to clarify that I am not claiming 20mm or 30mm cannons dealt no damage—of course they did. However, they certainly weren’t destroying the aircraft in just 5 to 6 rounds as you claim
In the upcoming photos, you will see even more detailed shots

Lieutenant Jabez F. Churchill (co pilot) and Lieutenant William F. Cely (pilot) of the 94th Bomb Group look through a shell hole in their B-17 Flying Fortress nicknamed “Frenesi”. Printed caption on reverse: ‘Fortress Get Home With Damaged Nose. Associated Press Photo Shows:- Lt. Jabez F. Churchill (left), of 903 Cherry Street, Santa Rosa, Calif., and Lt. William F. Cely, of 674 8th Avenue East, Houston Texas, co-pilot and pilot respectively of the Flying Fortresses, “Frenesi”, peer through a big hole in the left wing of their bomber which was torn by a 20mm shell burst in the hot battle with German fighters at Brunswick January 11. “Frenesi” was so badly damaged that she had to be junked five of the crew flew her back to England. FL/AB AP 263895. 14-1-44-Y.’ On reverse: Associated Press and US Army General Section Press & Censorship Bureau [Stamps].
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205363879

Staff Sergeant George Gronhe of the 547th Bomb Squadron, 384th Bomb Group repairs a damaged B-17 Flying Fortress (SO-R). Passed for publication 19 Aug 1943. Handwritten caption on reverse: ‘4. SO:R, 384BG. Patches at Boxted.’ Printed caption on reverse: 'Battered But Victorious. This is a Flying Fortress that just returned from a mission. Bullets have torn holes in the fuselage and the wings, but the ‘plane carried out its mission and the ground crew at the base wasted to repair their aircraft. Keystone Photo Shows:- St. Sgt. George Gronhe, Detroit, Mich., looknig at the hole in the Fortress. U.S. Pool/F. Keystone SG.’ Censor no: 279567. On reverse: Keystone Press Agency, US Army Press Censor ETO and US Army General Section Press & Censorship Bureau [Stamps].
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205364922

Lieutenant Arthur W Mack and Lieutenant Francis M McCullagh of the 306th Bomb Group examine a cannon hole in their B-17 Flying Fortress nicknamed “Four Leaf Clover”. Passed for publication 12 Jan 1944. Printed caption on reverse: ‘Fortress Returns From Toughest Day Raid “Raked From Tail To Nose”. Some of the fiercest air battles of the war were fought yesterday, January 11, when Fortresses and Liberators attacked vital targets in North-West Germany in great strength. Swarms of fighters came up to challenge them, the defences including planes trailing bombs on long cables, rocket planes and rocket flak. One of the Fortresses, “Four Leaf Clover”, reached home raked from tail to nose and from wingtip to wingtip. Not one of its engines escaped damage and one of them was on fire when, with half of its rudder shot away, it landed by automatic pilot. Three crew-members, the top-turret gunner, tail-gunner and radio-operator were injured. Associated Press Photo Shows:- Lt. Arthur W. Mack, left, of 4550-161st Street, Flushing, N.Y., and Lt. Francis M. McCullagh, of 1040-57th Street, Brooklyn, N.Y., examine the hole made by a 20mm cannon shell in the outer tip of the left wing of the plane during yesterday’s (January 11) raid on North-West Germany. IRV 263808. 12-1-44-Y.’ Censor no: 299752. On reverse: Associated Press and US Army General Section Press & Censorship Bureau [Stamps].
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205364818

airplanes
4x5 neg rec’d 12/30/43 from BPR. Used in Gen.
THEATRE #12 (England) - Battle Damage
Clayton Bissell’s book "Battle Damage 8th Air
Force.
Boeing B-17 “Flying Fortress” damaged by heavy flak (5/19/43).
Battle damage
264.590

airplaner
THEATRE #12 (England) - Battle Damage
Copied 12/30/43 from General Clayton Bissell’s
book, "Battle Damage 8th Air Force. 11
Boeing B-17 “Flying Fortress” Flak hits on tail gunner position and rudder.
Battle damage
26487AC
INDMXMD
26487AC.
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/204842055

airplanes
THEATRE #12 (England) - Battle Damage
Copied 12/30/43 from General Clayton Bissell’s
book, "Battle Damage 8th Air Force. 11
Radio compartment of Boeing B-17 “Flying Fortress” caused by heavy flak and 20 mm shells (5/19/43).
Pattedomage
26460 A.C.
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/204842001?objectPanel=extracted

At an Eighth Air Force Base somewhere in England, S./Sgt. Anthony L. Santoro looks
out the waist window of his B-17 “Flying Fortress” at the damage caused by a German
20-mm shell.
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/204842766

An 88 mm shell hit the nose of this Boeing B-17 “Flying Fortress” (A/C No. 958) of the 40lst
Bomb Squadron, 9lst Bomb Group during a mission over enemy-held territory in Europe on 25 April
1944. Bassingbourne, England.
5666
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/204842620

airplanes
THEATRE #12 (England) - Battle Damage
Copied 12/30/43 from General Clayton Bissell’s
book, "Battle Damage 8th Air Force. "
Tailgun position of Boeing B-17F damaged by 20 mm cannon shell, (5/17/43).
Battledang
26458 Aairplanes
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/204841997

That’s all for my research. Thank you to everyone who took the time to read

[Loofah]

@HooFnET

Handwritten caption on reverse: ‘105mm flak hit - blew out ball and waist. 27/9/44.’

How could they even tell if it was 105mm or 88mm?

While one can accurately estimate whether 20mm or 30mm hit, when we get to 88 vs 105mm difference… Well…

And you do realise that “could survive” doesn’t mean it would survive.

I routinely kill tanks with ridiculous random shots that strike some super tiny spot on otherwise impenetrable vehicle.
That doesn’t mean the weapon I’m using is generally effective vs the intended target.

B-17 surviving flak shell is absolutely possible.
But would I bet my money on it?
Hell no.

But remember, F150 can shrug off half of TNT equivalent if 88mm HE shell with superficial damage according to one user, so I guess F150 should confidently survive 88mm HE direct hits too.

[HooFnET]

Twin is disproving a military document

[Loofah]

You literally are just using selected examples trying to prove B-17 is tough. All they prove is surviving is possible.
But it does NOT mean it is likely.
You did not prove that in any shape or form.

Also in many examples we can’t even tell if it was a direct hit, or just timed fuse being very well set, as we have no idea how does the effect of 88mm HE shell exploding 2,5m away from aircraft looks like and since milions of rounds were fired at B-17s, you simply can’t just assume anything by probability alone.

That’s my entire point.

Your point seems to be “wow, it survived a direct hit, so tough”, while many thousands were brought down with A LOT less than 88mm direct hit.

[HooFnET]

By the way, to answer your question: this photo shows a bomber returning from the Kassel Raid, the primary objective of which was a comprehensive strike targeting German industrial and logistics hubs. During the Kassel mission, the bombers targeted industrial facilities and rail networks around Ludwigshafen, Cologne, and Mainz. In this context, it was well-known that the weapon responsible for this damage was an 88mm or 105mm shell, as these strategic sectors were heavily defended by heavy air defense emplacements utilizing 88mm and 105mm Flak artillery.

[HooFnET]

Dude, do you have trouble understanding? I explained right at the beginning why I chose the B-17. You are literally talking with zero data in your hands

[Loofah]

But there was no doubt, 105mm, end of story.
I mean, one has to be really confident in his intel to make such a claim.
The “88 or 105” descriptions I’m fine with.

[Loofah]

@HooFnET

Dude, do you have trouble understanding? I explained right at the beginning why I chose the B-17. You are literally talking with zero data in your hands

You also have 0 statistically relevant data in your hands. Nice pictures, though.

[HooFnET]

Dude, let me ask you again—are you dense? There were only two possibilities, either an 88mm or a 105mm, and the investigating authorities concluded that this was damage caused by a 105mm shell. What on earth are you even talking about?

[HooFnET]

Images are also a form of data and evidence

[Loofah]

I’m telling you, it’s not possible to be 100% sure hence in every other situation investigating body could not tell.

But hey, I’m sure they just watched the killfeed!

Also, again, if you want B-17 to be realistically durable (whatever that means, as you have no statistically relevant data of “how much damage is needer”, as real life you don’t have a goddamn health bar, how about fighters get realistic durability too, because right now they are wet paper.

[HooFnET]

Dude, you are completely side-tracking the topic. The only reason I shared this data was to make a point about the aircraft’s durability, and here you are talking about artillery units

[HooFnET]

Warplanes are your problem—if you had actually helped us, we would have helped you too.

[HooFnET]

All you did was complain without offering any actual help. This mutual cooperation could have benefited both sides, but you turned it down

[Loofah]

@HooFnET

Images are also a form of data and evidence

They are evidence of something happening.
But they are not statistically relevant.
I can shoot on the move and murder IS-3 with 75mm Sherman gun from 2km away.
Then you have a picture of it happening.
What does it prove?
That it’s possible.
What does it not prove?
That this is a likely outcome.

You have a B-17. It gets hit with 88mm HE. You have no idea, if it exploded on contact, or just pretty close. With milions of rounds fired, both scenarios happened often enough.
But we have 0 idea how often were B-17 hit in either of these 2 ways.
We have no idea how many of these aircraft made it.
We have no idea how many did not.
We know that such aircraft “making it” would surely get photographed while the one that did not would not.
End of story.

I believe B-17 with a ton of luck COULD survive even a direct, contact fuse engaged 105mm HE hit.
Maybe due to incomplete detonation, maybe just due to sheer luck.

But is this a likely scenario or maybe 1 in 100? You and I both have no idea.

We can only assume best case scenario is shell hitting fuselage to one side, away from wings, with lucky shrapnel dispersion is a survivable scenario. And I’m fine with that.

[HooFnET]

I agree with you on this point—I wouldn’t call it a direct hit either. But that still doesn’t change the fact that it survived an 88mm shell.When a 105mm shell equipped with a time fuze detonates just a few meters beside or above the aircraft, the resulting shockwave and high-velocity shrapnel cloud tear through the B-17’s thin aluminum skin like paper. However, because the main internal steel and duralumin load-bearing spars take no direct kinetic impact, the airframe does not disintegrate in mid-air and manages to return home.

[HooFnET]

However, besides that, everything you’re saying is based purely on assumptions. At least the report I compiled shows aircraft returning despite sustaining this level of damage, and the fact that even a single aircraft made it back proves that the others were capable of surviving as well.

[Loofah]

The problem is, to translate “capability” to the game, we need to get some kind of probability data.
And we don’t have that.
Nobody claims bombers should get 3-shot by Shvak and I’m a strong fan of skillful gameplay.
Currently fighter planes are getting literally one shot by the weakest WW2 mid-late war 20mm HE shell, and that includes P-47.
So, as you can see, it’s not just a bomber durability problem.
Now, problem with bombers is, it doesn’t matter how well you do everything as a fighter, if the bomber guy is smart and aims good, he’ll end you. So best case scenario for meeting such guy is going 1 to 1. And generally, that is not good for gameplay, at least I find scenarios of inescapeable death and unapproachable enemies lame as hell, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[HooFnET]

Look buddy, I get where you’re coming from, but I want you to understand this: do you really expect a massive bomber to just shatter into pieces like LEGO bricks after taking merely 2 or 3 rounds? That’s one of the core issues we’ve been pointing out. These bombers were built to sustain this kind of damage, so you shouldn’t expect them to fall apart like LEGOs from just 2–3 hits, and a bomber’s tail section snapping off from just 2 rounds is not realistic at all. On top of that, whenever I play bombers, I constantly get jumped and sprayed at by 3 or 4 fighters at once, and I’m sure you know what I mean—you literally vaporize in just about 3 seconds.

[Loofah]

You literally had to ignore my entire comment before writing this, because I DELIBERATELY mentioned that current situation is way beyond what anyone (reasonable) was asking for. But I also mentioned fighter durability is ridiculously bad, because that’s the current reality of WT.
Almost everything regarding damage and damage models is simply wrong.