Boeing Niner Zero Niner AwwwYEAH!

wrote in message
news
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 08:40:18 -0500, "Bill Denton"
wrote:
PS, the Germans had no need for something as complicated as the Norden
bombsight because they did not bomb from great heights nor did they
posses a heavy bomber. Their bombers were for the most part, medium
battlefield support aircraft and dive bombers.

This may have been how they started out, but it wasn't how
they came to be used. The only reason that Germany didn't
produce heavy 4 engined bombers was their thought that it
was more beneficial to produce twice the number of twin
engined ones, the limiting factor at the time being engines.

Oh, just a quick reference, the inaccuracy of the bombing
was detailed in the Butt report of August 1941.
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com...uttreport.aspx
The report was criticised at the time for potentially lowering
morale within Bomber Command, but it turned out to be what
was needed. As well as switching to area bombardment, new
ways were found to increase bomb accuracy, and some great
technological achievents came about.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwt...mbers_02.shtml

Another quote from:
http://modena.intergate.ca/business/boport/cbctv/

Bomber Command's attacks, initially a mere nuisance, became what Hitler's
armaments minister, Albert Speer, called "the greatest battle that we lost."
On May 15, 1940, 93 bombers set out for the Krupp works at Essen. In a later
asssessment it was calculated that the proportion of bombs that actually it
the vast factories was 3 percent. In contrast, in a massive attack by 705
"heavies" on July 25, 1943, marked by Oboe-equipped Pathfinders, the
proportion was assessed at 96 percent.



Paul

I'm thankful I didn't have to fly one in combat. B-17's are beautiful
airplanes but during WWII, they were big slow targets.

Particularly for flak. Every B-17 vet I've ever talked to (dozens) said
they'd have rather shoot it out with the Luftwaffe than ride through a flak
storm on any given day. Over Germany, they generally got both, sometimes
simultaneously.

All those guys could count the number of people lost and calculate their
chances for staying alive till their tour was over, they weren't good.

Seven missions was the average, which is about a month. 25, then 30, then
35 were the requirement to rotate. They had the highest casualty percentages
for the allies according to some sources, although I know one veteran who
nearly completed two tours. (Had a nut shot off.)

The B-24 is a magnifent airplane and worthy of a better place in history,
but it's sad that the B-17 airframe couldn't stick around longer in greater
civilian duties. I think they're one of the most majestic airplanes ever
flown.

For Christmas, though, I'd settle for a B-25 or even a P-38. BTW, they
gave the bomber visit good press on the news last night.

-c

In article , gatt wrote:

but it's sad that the B-17 airframe couldn't stick around longer in greater
civilian duties. I think they're one of the most majestic airplanes ever
flown.

Well, it was an old design even during the war. B-17's were commonly used
in firebombing until the 1970's. Zillions of them were sold as surplus
around the world. I, for one, thought it remarkable that people would fly
in a plane where the official starting procedure required a crewman to
stand next to each engine with a fire extinguisher.

I think we should all marvel that there are so many of them still flying.
How many other planes designed in the 1930's are still around?

"No Such User" wrote in message news:cavvec$7g6t7

Zillions of them were sold as surplus
around the world.

That is true. Here in Portland there was a guy who bought one to use as the
roof of his gas station. He bought one as surplus for $5000, flew it into
Portland and wrecked in on landing. The government felt bad for him, and
gave him a second one at no cost. It's still there, except they took the
nose off to restore it, so now there's a nose-less B-17 sitting over what
used to be gas station pump islands.

-c