B-24 = Flying Coffin (crew nickname).
As I type this, I'm sitting in the lodge built by the man who built the nose cones for the B-17.
Did you ever read, "Everything But The Flack?" I have a tattered, dogeared copy in paperback, yellowed and held together by a rubber band. I believe it was written by Martin Caidin, and tells the story of the trials and tribulations of rehabilitating the B-17's they needed to film the movie, "The War Lover."
Quote: "Great plane (the B17) but highly overrated ..."
I would not call it over-rated at all, and I'm not just being sentimental.
On the day Pearl Harbor was bombed, just how many top-of-the-line combat aircraft designs did the USA have in production? The P38 and B17 are the only 2 that come to mind, unless you want to call the P40 also top-of-the-line or the F4F.
That the B-24 is superior to the B-17 is indisputable, like saying the B-29 is superior to the Liberator. But at least the B-17 was a proven entity when production ramped up for the war effort. The B-24 was so new, it is understandable why the US military leaned on the Flying Fortresses for so long.
In my younger days, I had the privilege of knowing a gentleman you piloted both types. He hated the B24.
The Fort was also far easier to handle in formation at altitude, a particularly important charecteristic when the air is battered by the propwash of thousands of propellers and survival is largely contingent upon maintaining tight formation to exploit the interlocking fields of protective MG fire from the bomber's defensive armament.
And don't disregasrd that factor of ruggedness. I have seen hundreds of photos of heavily battle damaged B-17's whose successful return is nearly impossible to fathom. The broad wing's chord had much to do with this. The B-24's Davis airfoil was an advance cotributing to the higer performance, but did not allow it to sustain as much damage as the Fortress.