B-17 in ASW? (1 Viewer)

[EwenS]

Geoffrey
The 22nd BG was equipped with B-26 when it left the USA for Australia between Jan & March 1942. They were augmented / replaced by B-25 in some of its squadrons in 1943 before the whole Group converted to B-24 in Feb 1944.

The 38th BG 5th AF was also a B-26 user in the Pacific until 1943. 4 of its aircraft were diverted to Midway, where they made a famous, but near suicidal, attack on the IJN carriers in June 1942.

Ewen

 

[Jugman]

The range advantage of the B-24 (along with the myth of the Davis wing low drag coefficient effect on the range) is a myth started by misinformation spread by Consolidated when they were trying to sell their aircraft to the USAAC, and perpetuated by historians. Range tests performed by the RAF and USAAF in 1942 (and again later by the USAAF) as well as 8th AF service evaluations, showed that the B-17 - in actual service - had as good a range or better than the B-24 when carrying the same amount of fuel and war-load. (With the addition of the 'Tokyo tanks' in both aircraft the maximum fuel load was virtually the same.)

Early B-24 did have a range advantage. The B-17E had a maximum internal fuel load of only 1732 us gal vs 2308us gal for the B-24. Adding bomb bay tanks increased fuel capacity by 792us gal and 782us gal respectively. The B-24 still has the forward half of its bomb bay giving some utility.
The B-17E had a much lower bomb capacity as well.
B-17E
8 600lb gp
4 1100lb gp
2 2000lb gp
B-24D
12 325lb db
12 600lb gp
8 650lb db
8 1100lb gp
4 2000lb gp
I don't have depth bomb figures for the B-17E but 8 325lb or 4 650lb bombs seems likely.

The Davis wing is a good design. The problem with the B-24 is its fuselage and tail. By contrast the B-17's wing was obsolescent but it's fuselage had lower drag and the performance of its engines better matched its aerodynamic performance of the airframe netting better range and top speed.

 

[nuuumannn]

The B-24/LB-30 being built in 1940/early 1941 were not combat worthy, the B-17C built in 1940 and the D in early 1941 were thought to be combat worthy.

The problem here is that everyone is talking about what the USA was doing with these aircraft from 1942, not before. It's worth noting that the USAAC had some distinctly peculiar ideas about warfare and British experience helped enormously before the USA entered the war. Its most numerous bomber was the B-18 Bolo, which performance-wise pailed in comparison to overseas bombers, yet by the end of 1940, over 400 were in frontline USAAC service. It was the British who suggested fitting self-sealing tanks, armour plating and powered gun turrets to US bombers (as well as the former to US fighters from experience learned during the Battle of Britain). In mid-1941 the USA did not have a functioning indigenous power operated gun turret in production and turrets received as technology transfers from Britain in 1941 confirmed that they needed to be adopted. Before then, a USAAC report stated that successful tail mounted defensive armament was unable to be achieved, this was despite RAF Wellingtons and Whitleys being fitted with power operated tail turrets in 1940. Companies like Bendix, Sperry and Martin benefitted enormously from this British technology transfer. The Briggs-Sperry A.1 Ball turret used Vickers electro-hydraulic working gear built under licence from Boulton Paul and supplied to the USA. The first functioning US-built power turret was built by Douglas and used Vickers working gear; it was fitted to the XB-19 and demonstrated that it didn't work as the turret could not rotate in the slipstream.

Regarding the B-24, again, it was the British who suggested improvements to Consolidated that were applied that enabled better combat readiness down the line. These included the aforementioned improved defensive armament, armour plating and self-sealing fuel tanks. The first B-24s in RAF service, Liberator Is were used for transport duties, as well as in Coastal Command as patrol aircraft, entering service in June 1941 as mentioned earlier. The Liberator Mk.II first arrived in Britain in the same month, which was introduced into RAF Bomber Command and was the first of the type used in combat in the role for which it was designed. On arrival in Britain, these were fitted with Boulton Paul four-gun power turrets in the tail and mid upper positions, aft of the wing box. These were sent to the Middle East and saw action with 159 and 160 Sqns from June 1942.

The British experiments with the B-17C or Fortress I with 90 Sqn, Bomber Command proved beyond doubt that the type was not ready for combat. It iced over at altitude, its guns failed to work, it was beset with mechanical failures, the engines kept exploding, the turbosuperchargers constantly failed and during its only operational sorties, aircraft had to turn back and descend to lower altitudes because everything iced over and stopped functioning. On one aircraft the bomb bay doors refused to function, on another, icing jammed the rudder in place so the pilot descended to a lower altitude, which did the trick and he flew it back to Britain. The US reports blamed the British for the B-17 failures, stating that sending the aircraft on individual sorties was a mistake, but serviceability was so bad that 90 Sqn had little choice but to do that. The British were also not responsible for the many mechanical issues, or the fact the aircraft had never been tested in a temperate climate - the USA is not just one big desert, for those who say the air is dryer.

The first Fortress I lost crashed from high altitude, killing all aboard; the investigation found no mechanical fault with the aircraft, but the theory was that at an altitude of 30,000 feet its controls iced over and entered a spiral dive. It took 90 Sqn three months to work the aircraft up to readiness, and even then, the aircraft were beset by mechanical failures. A team of US civilians were sent over to examine air crew's reaction to flying at extreme altitudes - the Americans were keen on seeing how well the aircraft and crew would perform, but of course the experiment was a disaster. Some of these civilians were killed when the aircraft fell from the sky. As previously mentioned, in October 1940, RAF Bomber Command emphatically declared that it would not be ordering the Fortress I and the remaining aircraft were handed over to Coastal Command.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

The 22nd BG was equipped with B-26 when it left the USA for Australia between Jan & March 1942. They were augmented / replaced by B-25 in some of its squadrons in 1943 before the whole Group converted to B-24 in Feb 1944.

Yes, my mistake, I missed it.

"Constituted as 22nd Bombardment Group (Medium) on 22 Dec 1939. Activated on 1 Feb 1940. Trained with B-18 and B-26 aircraft, and used the latter to fly antisubmarine patrols off the west coast, Dec 1941-Jan 1942. Moved to the Southwest Pacific early in 1942, became part of Fifth AF, and served in combat in that area until V-J Day. Attacked enemy shipping, installations, and airfields in New Guinea and New Britain and supported ground forces in New Guinea, using B-26's until Oct 1943 when B-25's were added. Continued to support the Allied offensive in New Guinea, striking troop concentrations, installations, and shipping, being awarded a DUC for knocking out enemy entrenchments (5 Nov 1943) that were preventing the advance of Australian ground forces. Redesignated 22nd Bombardment Group (Heavy) in Feb 1944."

USAAF Statistical Digest, 1st line strength
Pacific Ocean Areas, 3 B-26 on strength end May 1942, 14 end June, otherwise none.
Far East Air Forces, no B-26 column, just "other" medium bombers, starting with 15 end April 1942, peaking at 77 end July, final entry 37 end September 1943.
Alaska 5 end January 1942, peak of 29 end June, final entry 12 end January 1943.

I am not sure what the authorised strength of a medium bomber group was in 1942/43 assuming 54 aircraft and assuming all present were in the 22nd Group, it was under strength in B-26 from December 1942 onwards, down to 2 squadrons with B-26 from January 1943, web sites say B-25 added in October.

The 38th BG 5th AF was also a B-26 user in the Pacific until 1943. 4 of its aircraft were diverted to Midway, where they made a famous, but near suicidal, attack on the IJN carriers in June 1942.

Not so sure about 1943.
"Constituted as 38th Bombardment Group (Medium) on 20 Nov 1940. Activated on 15 Jan 1941. Trained with B-18, B-25, and B-26 aircraft. The ground echelon moved to Australia, Jan-Feb 1942, while the air echelon remained in the US for further training. Air echelons of two squadrons arrived in Hawaii in May 1942 and took part in the Battle of Midway; they did not rejoin the group and eventually were reassigned. Air echelons of the other squadrons arrived in Australia in Aug 1942. Assigned to Fifth AF and equipped with B-25's,"

B-17 deployed against Japan, peaking at 168 end September 1942, steady decline to 67 end September 1943, 3 end October, 1 end November.
Pacific Ocean Areas, peak 73 end June 1942, to 2 end October.
Far East Air Forces, peak 124 end September 1942, last entry 58 end September 1943.
CBI peaked at 19 end June 1942, stayed around 10 to end April 1943, final entry 1 in November.
Alaska peaked at 11 September to December 1942, then halved, last entry 2 end October 1943.

B-17 with extra tanks, first loss, plus the 8th Air Force last combat loss of the previous, non Tokyo tank, block.
B-17F-55-BO, production from December 1942, first 8th Air Force loss 7 May 1943, last B-17F-50-BO combat loss 30 January 1944.
B-17F-25-DL, production from January 1943, first 8th Air Force loss 14 May 1943, last B-17F-20-DL combat loss 21 February 1944.
B-17F-30-VE, production from February 1943, first 8th Air Force loss 21 May 1943, last B-17F-25-VE combat loss 22 February 1944.

If the decision to withdraw the B-17 from the war against Japan was made in 1942 then the B-24 at that time had a longer range than the B-17 even though the B-17 had better economy figures. An advantage the B-24 had was the ability to carry 8,000 pounds of HE bombs internally compared with 6,000 pounds in the B-17.

The problem here is that everyone is talking about what the USA was doing with these aircraft from 1942, not before.

There has been mention of the 1941 B-17 and B-24 operations.

Douglas B-18 133 built mostly in 1937/38, B-18A 237 built June 1938 to March 1940, including 20 for the RCAF, leaving 350 for the USAAF, less the usual attrition. As of 31 December 1939 the then USAAC held 364 standard and 133 limited standard bombardment types, most of the standard would be the B-18 and B-18A, only 24 B-17B accepted to end December 1939. Between them the regular army, the organised reserves and the national guard held 2,546 aircraft, with 3,395 more due from contractors.

Boulton-Paul initially licensed a French aircraft turret design.

Bomber Command did not operate or try to operate B-24 until the second half of 1944 and then for RCM work, not bombing. The RAF decided to use the B-24 as an overseas heavy bomber in 1941/42 instead of allocating more to Coastal Command. While a Halifax had been exported in December 1941, then 32 in June/July 1942, then steady exports from October. Britain exported 2 B-24 in March 1942, then another 50 June 1942 to January 1943 (out of 173 reported imports), remembering exports exclude moves as part of a military unit. According to the British to end September 1943 all RAF Liberators had been sent to Britain except 4 for the Middle East and 4 for Canada.

February 1943 the RAF had 31 Halifax overseas after taking 16 losses and 55 B-24 after taking 23 losses.

Bomber Command Fortress Squadron nominal strength 16 aircraft, daily reports from 12 July 1941 to 1 February 1942, 205 days, average aircraft serviceable 3.5, average crews available 4.4, average aircraft with crews 3.2. Most aircraft reported serviceable 6, mostly in 1942, most crews available 9 on 13 August 1941, then 5 more days of 8 crews, all in August 1941, peak of aircraft with crew 5. Operations were done 8 July to 25 September 1941, from 12 July to 25 September (76 days), average aircraft serviceable 3.5, average crews available 4.9, average aircraft with crews 3.3.

Bomber Command reports 51 sent, 24 effective, 25 aborts, 2 Missing, 1 Category E, 1 Category AC due to enemy action. Only 1,100 pound HE bombs dropped. Overseas bombing operations reported as 4 despatched, 2 effective, 1 aircraft crash landed, 16x500 and 4x1000 pound bombs dropped.

The B-17C/Fortress I use in the RAF showed the usual gap between peace time theory and testing and actual wartime use, at the same time the RAF was using it at higher altitudes than the USAAF was planning to.

List of 1941 Bomber Command Fortress raids, 0 in the despatched column means a secondary target.

Target	Date	Type	Despatch	Attack	Abort	1100lb	Notes
Wilhelmshaven	8-Jul-41​	Barracks	3​	2​	0​	6​	Naval Barracks
Norderney	8-Jul-41​	P/A	0​	1​	0​	4​
Berlin	23-Jul-41​	I/A	3​	0​	3​	0​
Brest	24-Jul-41​	Fleet	3​	3​	0​	12​	Gneisenau
Hamburg	26-Jul-41​	P/A	2​	0​	1​	0​
Emden	26-Jul-41​	City	0​	1​	0​	4​
Kiel	2-Aug-41​	P/A	2​	1​	1​	4​
Bremen	2-Aug-41​	P/A	1​	0​	0​	0​	1 Me109 damaged
Borkum	2-Aug-41​	P/A	0​	1​	0​	4​
Brest	6-Aug-41​	P/A	2​	2​	0​	8​
De Kooy	12-Aug-41​	A/F	1​	1​	0​	4​
Emden	12-Aug-41​	P/A	1​	1​	0​	4​
Koln	12-Aug-41​	I/A	2​	1​	1​	4​
Brest	16-Aug-41​	Fleet	2​	0​	2​	0​	1 Fortress Category E, enemy action
Dusseldorf	16-Aug-41​	I/A	2​	2​	0​	8​
Dusseldorf	19-Aug-41​	I/A	2​	0​	2​	0​
Dussledorf	21-Aug-41​	I/A	3​	0​	3​	0​
Dusseldorf	29-Aug-41​	I/A	1​	0​	1​	0​
Kiel	31-Aug-41​	I/A	1​	0​	1​	0​
Bremen	31-Aug-41​	I/A	1​	1​	0​	4​
Hamburg	31-Aug-41​	I/A	1​	0​	0​	0​
Spiekeroog	31-Aug-41​	P/A	0​	1​	0​	4​
Duisberg	2-Sep-41​	R/R	1​	0​	1​	0​
Hamburg	2-Sep-41​	R/R	1​	0​	1​	0​
Bremen	2-Sep-41​	I/A	1​	1​	0​	4​
Hamburg	4-Sep-41​	I/A	1​	0​	1​	0​
Hannover	4-Sep-41​	I/A	1​	0​	1​	0​
Essen	4-Sep-41​	I/A	1​	0​	0​	0​
Rotterdam	4-Sep-41​	P/A	0​	1​	0​	4​
Oslo	6-Sep-41​	S/Y	4​	3​	1​	12​	Admiral Von Scheer (Akers Mek Verksted, Oslo Shipbuilding and Repair Yards)
Oslo	8-Sep-41​	S/Y	4​	0​	2​	0​	2 Fortress missing, Akers Mek Verksted, Oslo Shipbuilding and Repair Yards
Cologne	15-Sep-41​	I/A	1​	0​	1​	0​
Cologne	16-Sep-41​	I/A	1​	0​	1​	0​
Emden	20-Sep-41​	I/A	1​	1​	0​	4​
Emden	25-Sep-41​	I/A	1​	0​	1​	0​

Fortress losses with Bomber Command via W.R. Chorley
AN522, 22 June 1941, air test, flew into cumulus cloud at 33,000 feet, structural failure, 7 killed, 1 safe
AN528, 3 July 1941, caught fire during servicing
AN534, 28 July 1941, air test, flew into severe turbulence, structural failure, 7 killed
AN523, 16 August 1941, badly damaged by fighters, crash landed, caught fire, 3 killed, 1 injured, 3 safe
AN525, AN533 8 September 1941, shot down by fighters, 14 KIA

 

[EwenS]

Geoffrey
History of 38th BG is complicated by virtue of equipment changes and transfers of squadrons in and out of the Group, as well as changes in overall theatre command structures (13th AF was formed in Jan 1943 for example), not to mention separation of ground and air echelons as units moved from the USA to Pacific theatres.

69th BS - While it received its first B-25 on 28th Oct 1942, it still had B-26 on hand until 27th Feb 1943 when its remaining B-26 were transferred to the 70th BS (see below). During March more B-25s with crews were received to allow full re-equipment. Then on 22nd March the whole squadron was transferred to the 42nd BG, 13AF. Some sources say the transfer was 26th Feb. It then flew the B-25 as part of that Group to the end of the War.
Taken from USAF unit histories &
"Thirteenth Air Force Story" by Ken Rust & Dana Bell

https://usafunithistory.com/PDF/50-74/69%20BOMB%20SQ.pdf

70th BS - This unit continued to use the B-26 into March 1943. Like the 69th BS, it too re-equipped with the B-25 in March 1943 and transferred to the 42nd BG, 13AF on 22nd March.

71st BS - This squadron trained on the B-26 in the USA but converted to the B-25 in summer 1942 bbefore the air echelon left for Australia.

405th BS - joined the Group in Feb 1942. As per 71st.

Two new B-25 equipped Bomb Squadrons, the 822nd and 823rd, which had formed in Australia joined the 38th BG in April 1943, to bring it up to strength.

13thAF was still showing B-26 operations and losses through to the end of Jan 1943. The B-26 was the only USAAF torpedo bomber in theatre during this period.

The 42nd BG was another unit that saw many changes in its subordinate units and equipment. That include the B-26 until early 1943, when its two remaining squadrons converted to the B-25 before moving to the South Pacific where the 69th & 70th BS joined to make up the full group. The B-25 equipped 100th BS joinedcatvthe end of 1943, making the Group unusual in having 5 B.S..

Ewen

 

[nuuumannn]

Boulton-Paul initially licensed a French aircraft turret design.

Yes, they did, John North was approached by Antoine de Boysson as the Armee de l'Air was not interested in the SAMM turret and it was never fitted to an aircraft; it was an experiment and had not been put into production - essentially the French didn't want it, so Boulton Paul bought it. It was built under licence but changes were made to the turret for mass production. Working gear was supplied by Hele-Shaw Beacham of Gloster. Remember that Boulton Paul was the first firm to develop a usable powered gun turret, fitted to the Overstrand Bomber. Boulton Paul did use the SAMM turret electro-hydraulic working gear in all their turrets from the A.1 fitted to the Defiant, onwards. At the same time, mid-1930s, both Bristol and Nash & Thompson were building turrets. The N&T FN.1 powered cupola was already in service in the Hawker Demon from 1936 and the turret fitted to the Blenheim as well was hydraulically powered. By 1939, Britain was the only country in the world with powered turrets in production by more than one company in service on aircraft.

Bomber Command did not operate or try to operate B-24 until the second half of 1944 and then for RCM work, not bombing. The RAF decided to use the B-24 as an overseas heavy bomber in 1941/42 instead of allocating more to Coastal Command.

You've contradicted yourself, there, Geoff, firstly you are saying Bomber Command did not use B-24s until the second half of 1944, then you say the RAF decided to use the B-24 as an overseas heavy bomber in 1941/1942, which is what I stated in my post above. Bomber Command received Liberator Mk.IIs in June 1941, which were, as I mentioned sent into action in the Middle East a year later. The Mk.II was a Britain only variant that was designed specifically for British use. As I mentioned, these were fitted with Boulton Paul turrets in Britain before they went into service.

 

[Maty12]

Not really the main topic, but thought I'd add to the discussion of B-25s and B-26s in the Pacific.

22nd BG, 38th BG and 42nd BG had all received a full complement of 57 B-26s by December of 1941, although not all aircraft were fully combat ready at the time. Medium Bombardment Groups were composed of a Headquarters Squadron with 5 aircraft, 3 bombardment squadrons with 13 aircraft, and 1 reconnaissance squadron with 13 aircraft.

Squadrons were as follows:
22nd BG: HQ S, 2nd BS, 19th BS, 33rd BS, 18th RS (redesignated 408th BS)
38th BG: HQ S, 69th BS, 70th BS, 71st BS, 15th RS (redesignated 406th BS)
42nd BG: HQ S, 75th BS, 76th BS, 77th BS, 16th RS (redesignated 405th BS)

The 77th was separated from the 42nd and began ferrying their 13-14 B-26s to Alaska on January 1st, 1942, losing five along the way. There they joined the 73rd Bombardments Squadron (which then also converted to B-26s) under the 28th Composite Group. Replacement B-26s arrived sometime during 1942, but not many were sent, the group only operating 34 B-26s total. Their main mission was to attack shipping, which they did unsuccessfully between June and mid-October 1942 with torpedoes, then more successfully with bombs between mid-October and December of 1942. The 28th started receiving B-25Cs in September of 1942 and operated both types until January or February 1943, when all surviving B-26s were ferried back to the US, some embarking in a publicity tour, all eventually ending up with flight schools or mechanic schools (or written off on the spot).

The 22nd was immediately assigned to anti-submarine work on the West Coast after Pearl Harbor, being the group that had operated the aircraft the longest and which had the most combat-equipped aircraft (though at least one was still being hurriedly fitted with a top turret). In early January plans were made to send both the 22nd and 38th to Australia, calling for the shipping of 114 B-26s to Hawaii along with their crews to then fly the rest of the way, and the shipping of the ground crews and a further 114 B-26s directly to Australia as replacements. The ground echelons for both groups did indeed depart for Australia in January and the 22nd's air echelon and 57-60 B-26s were shipped to Hawaii in February, and flew on to Australia between March and May. Three crews were lost during the crossing, one crew was lost at Midway and the other split up, some members sent back to the US while others arrived in Australia in October with a few other stragglers. A few of the original aircraft were written off in Hawaii, one crew instead received a new B-26B and another had to fly as passengers on an LB-30. Only 23-25 of the originally planned replacements B-26s were actually sent by ship, which then joined the 22nd BG in Australia between April and July. To add to that total, around half a dozen B-26Bs were sent by air during August and September, of which two were retained in New Caledonia instead of departing on the final leg of their ferry flight (General Harmon was given authority to retain aircraft that passed through New Caledonia in order to build up forces for Guadalcanal). In January 1943 the 22nd BG's remaining two dozen B-26s were grounded. The decision was made to switch all but one of the 22nd BG's squadrons to B-25s, with the 19th electing to keep the B-26s and flying them until January 1944, when the entire group converted to B-24s.

The 38th's air echelon was not sent to Australia and was instead split up, with most of the group staying in the US while the 69th and 70th were separated from the group and assigned to New Caledonia and Fiji respectively. They were no longer a part of the 38th BG and that group and its remaining and new squadrons did not fly B-26s into combat. The 69th and 70th's crews flew their own 26 B-26Bs to Hawaii during May and early June, where two planes and three crews were diverted to Midway. The 69th lost a crew and two planes in Midway, while the 70th lost a crew and their plane in Hawaii during the start of their next ferry flight. The 69th reached New Caledonia in June and immediately lost another aircraft to an APU fire, and the 70th reached Fiji in July, each date marking the reunion of the air and ground echelons. By August the 69th had 10 aircraft and the 70th had 12. Two replacement B-26Bs bound for Australia were held over and assigned to the 69th to make up their losses. Both squadrons flew mainly training flights and maritime patrols with torpedoes until mid-November, when they were briefly sent to Guadalcanal, where they ditched the torpedoes. They would return for longer stays many times during the next several months. Back in October 1942 the 69th started receiving B-25Cs, and it operated both types until late February 1943 when its remaining B-26Bs were handed over to the 70th. In March 1943 both squadrons were assigned to the 42nd Bombardment Group. The 70th remained an all B-26 unit until it started receiving B-25s in May 1943, at which points its B-26s were gradually transferred to the 5th Air Force, where they were mainly used as squadron hacks. This process was completed by August 1943.

To the best of my knowledge, the half a dozen B-26Bs sent to the 22nd BG and 69th BS in August and September of 1942 were the last combat-equipped Marauders sent to the Pacific. No replacement B-26s were sent to the units still flying the planes from that point on, and all eventually converted to B-25s or B-24s. The next batch of Marauders was assigned to the 17th, 319th and 320th BG which left for North Africa in the winter of 1942/1943. The decision had been made to use B-25s in the Pacific and B-26s in Europe. Both types were used in the Mediterraneanan for reasons I do not know.

Edit:
Sources/further reading:
Archival of some correspondence to and from General Arnold's office, generalstaff.org (relevant pages are pdf pages 13, 191, 194, 208-209, 217-223, 230-241, 332, 337, 399-400, 432-433, 438, 459-462, 502-508, 520, 538 575, 597, 615-616, 621-632, unfortunately wildly out or order).
History of the 69th BS
Bombs Away! A History of the 70th Bombardment Squadron (M) in early World War II - Larson, Harold V.
Revenge of the Red Raiders - Hickey, Lawrence, et. al.
The Story - Story, James B.

 

[Juanita]

The B-17 were also used in the ELINT type role (hope I have the right term, electronic recon) in Europe.
After the war the B-17 was used in lots of roles, including a few painted black and used by the CIA.

You might find these interesting

B-17 Clandestine/Special Service - War History

Although Bomber Command had no use for the Fortress as astandard night bomber following the early war experiences with Fortress Mk. Is,the B-17G ne...

warhistory.org

The night 12 Chinese MiGs were scrambled to intercept a lone CIA B-17 Spy Plane. They failed, and two of them crashed. - The Aviation Geek Club (the photos show WW2 B-17s not the CIA aircraft)

This one is better

The Museum of Flight Lecture: Secret CIA Flights from Taiwan Revealed

Experts discuss the daring 1969 mission to spy on Chinese nuclear weapons base

vintageaviationnews.com

 

[EwenS]

Is there any evidence that it was ever intended that Bomber Command, being the UK based bomber force to have the B-24 to equip some of its squadrons in the 1941-42 period?

The first LB-30 Liberators originating from the French order were the first where some of them were intended to be equipped as bombers, so becoming the Liberator B.II in RAF service. The prototype for these, AL503, was the one and only aircraft of this batch that was fitted with the BP turrets at the factory when it first flew on 18 May 1941. It crashed into San Diego Bay on 2 June 1941 before delivery to the RAF, killing its crew. AL504 replaced it as the Consolidated trials aircraft before being TOC by the RAF in April 1942 and used as a transport.

The first of this batch to be taken on charge by the RAF in Canada was the third production aircraft, AL505 which first flew on 8 Aug 1941, TOC 18 Aug and arrived in Britain on 27 Sept 1941. Between then and Pearl Harbor on 7/8 Dec 1941 63 had been TOC by the RAF of which 44 were destined to be completed as bombers. Of those only 39 came to Britain. The remaining 5 without BP turrets were delivered direct from the USA to Egypt by USAAC crews in Nov/Dec, with one crashing en route and its servicable parts being used to maintain the others. These were allocated to 108 squadron which flew the first ever Liberator bombing mission on the night of 10/11 Jan 1942 when AL566 flew from Fayid, Egypt to Tripoli & dropped 9 bombs.

At the time of PH any LB-30s in the USA or still in production were acquired by the USAAF. They totalled 76 of which 23 were transferred back to the RAF April-July 1942. Of those 9 were equipped on arrival as B.II.

Back in Britain, as aircraft arrived from Canada they were passed through the Scottish Aviation Factory at Prestwick to be fitted out for the specific role they were to play.

Reportedly, 150 squadron received 5 B.II at the end of 1941 but their life with the squadron was short lived and they were withdrawn Jan-May 1942.

The main units for the B.II began to form in Jan 1942. 1653 CU, 159 & 160 squadrons. The early life of the two squadrons is complicated by the fact that their ground and air echelons led separate lives for much of 1942, and when the aircraft arrived in the ME ground personnel from other units often became responsible for their servicing.

1653 (Liberator Conversion) Flight later 1653 Conversion Unit was formed on 9 Jan 1942 to convert crews allocated to 159 & 160 squadrons to the Liberator. Disbanded 31 Oct 1942.

159 squadron.
The first enrty in its ORB reads:-
"2/1/1942 Instructions issued by Air Ministry to the effect that 159 squadron was to form at MOLESWORTH for subsequent dispatch overseas to the Middle East- to be equipped with Liberator Mk.II aircraft (16 I.E.)"

In Feb 1942, the squadron was split in two. The "Air Party" remained at Molesworth. The "Boat Party" sailing for the MIddle East, probably on convoy WS16 which sailed on 16 Feb (they are noted as having left for embarkation at Liverpool on the 12th). They disembarked to Fayid in the Canal Zone, Egypt on 15 April 1942. On 10 May 1942 they sailed for Bombay, disembarking on 24th May to the Deolali transit camp.

The squadron aircraft flew out to Palestine in early July 1942 and began flying operations from there, Malta & Fayid at the beginning of Aug. They flew their last ME sorties on 16 Sept following which they packed up and moved to India to be reunited with the "Boat Party" at Salbani, with the first aircraft arriving there 30 Sept / 1 Oct.

160 squadron
The first entry in the squadron ORB reads
"War Establishment No. War/m.e./448, dated 31.12.41 (16 I.E. Four-engine Liberator II aircraft (Middle East)"

Squadron formed 16 Jan 1942 at Thurleigh. On 12 Feb the ground echelon left to embark for transport overseas. Originally intended as a pure bomber squadron, its role seems to have been expanded in April to encompass General Recce following the Japanese Operation C in the Indian Ocean, at which point its eventual destination seems to have changed to India. The 159 ORB notes that personnel from both squadrons travelled from Egypt to India on the same ship in May 1942.

The squadron began to collect Liberator II in Britain on 7 May 1942, at which point they moved to Nutts Corner to be temporarily attached to 120 squadron with aircraft modified quickly for CC operations and the crews trained accordingly, presumably to fit with its expanded role. On 8 June they began flying out to Palestine to assume bombing duties. At that point it was decided to retain them in the ME in the short term. The ORB notes that on 16 Sept 1942 "On this day No.160 squadron assumed its identity and personnel of No.159 squadron became attached." The Air Ministry issued an order on 1 Oct (backdated to 16 Sept) defining these Liberators as 160 (Middle East Detachment). On 11 Oct "No. 454 Squadron ceased to be attached for servicing duties". It was still flying bombing missions into Jan 1943. What was left was rolled into 178 squadron on 15 Jan 1943.

To confuse matters a new 160 squadron (at least the air echelon thereof) was formed in Britain and worked up alongside 86 squadron on the later Liberator III (based on B-24D) before flying its aircraft out to Ceylon in Jan 1943.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

To an extent the 13th AF was formed so the 5th AF was not operating in two different theatres, South West (Army Command) and South (Navy Command) Pacific the two effectively merged in 1944 with the advances to the Philippines.

Going through the Maurer references,
22 BG, Australia February 1942, New Guinea, etc., 2, 19, 33, 408 squadrons, with 19 to B-24 in 1944, rest to B-25 in 1943
38 BG, Australia February 1942, New Guinea, etc. 69, 70, 71, 405 squadrons, lost 69, 70 to 42nd BG in February 1943, picked up 822, 823 with B-25 in April 1943. 69, 70 B-26 did not make it to Australia, only as far as New Caledonia and Espiritu Santo respectively while 71, 405 equipped with B-25 in 1942.
42 BG, Fiji April 1943, Solomons etc. 75, 76, 77, 406 squadrons, lost 77 in January 1942 to Alaska, lost 406 in March 1942 to Alaska, picked up 390 in March 1942 (B-25/26 in 1942/43), picked up 69 (B-25/26 in 1942/43), 70 (to B-25 in 1943) from 38th BG in February 1943, 75, 76 look like they changed to B-25 in 1943.

As I read it, the 22nd was a combat B-26 group against Japan, which I missed, the 38th B-26 were used mostly for patrol work, the 42nd was effectively a B-25 group when it arrived.

First line strength, the remaining B-26 and other disappeared into the second line figure.

Month	B-25	Other MB	B-26	B-26
Month	Vs Japan	FEAF	Alaska	Pacific
Jan-42​	0​	0​	5​
Feb-42​	0​	0​	7​
Mar-42​	23​	18​	7​
Apr-42​	31​	51​	8​
May-42​	37​	63​	21​	3​
Jun-42​	35​	62​	29​	14​
Jul-42​	31​	77​	27​
Aug-42​	63​	61​	25​
Sep-42​	89​	59​	22​
Oct-42​	101​	58​	20​
Nov-42​	125​	54​	20​
Dec-42​	140​	51​	19​
Jan-43​	133​	42​	12​
Feb-43​	145​	40​
Mar-43​	184​	40​
Apr-43​	197​	39​
May-43​	360​	37​
Jun-43​	435​	36​
Jul-43​	455​	37​
Aug-43​	502​	37​
Sep-43​	488​	37​

All "Other" Medium Bombers deployed against Japan were with the Far East Air Forces (5th and 13th).

You've contradicted yourself, there, Geoff, firstly you are saying Bomber Command did not use B-24s until the second half of 1944, then you say the RAF decided to use the B-24 as an overseas heavy bomber in 1941/1942, which is what I stated in my post above.

Bomber Command was a distinct RAF formation, the claim of contradiction relies on it being redefined to mean RAF world wide bomber forces. Bomber Command generally receives the criticism over allocations of long range aircraft to Coastal Command, which ignores the fact it did not want the B-24 until having 1 squadron in 1944/45 for RCM and the Air Staff wanted heavy bomber forces in overseas theatres.

Also actually what was stated.

entering service in June 1941 as mentioned earlier. The Liberator Mk.II first arrived in Britain in the same month, which was introduced into RAF Bomber Command

NO. Partially repeated-

Bomber Command received Liberator Mk.IIs in June 1941, which were, as I mentioned sent into action in the Middle East a year later. The Mk.II was a Britain only variant that was designed specifically for British use. As I mentioned, these were fitted with Boulton Paul turrets in Britain before they went into service.

Not into Bomber Command and not in June 1941. Liberator I entered service with Coastal Command in June 1941. The LB-30A were the YB-24 originally ordered by the USAAF diverted to Britain, the Liberator I/B-24A/LB-30B came from the French contract, then came the Liberator II/B-24B/LB-30, again from the French contract. The first Liberator II was accepted in the US in August 1941. The LB-30A and LB-30B are reported as Liberator I in UK imports, 25 from March to August 1941, the first LB-30A arrived on 14 March 1941, first Liberator I arrived on 9 April 1941, the first Liberator II on 27 September 1941.

The XB-24 was also the XB-24B, it was the same aircraft with a new serial number and modifications including self sealing fuel tanks and armour, which the LB-30A and B did not have. The Liberator II had the protections and was built with provision for dorsal and tail turrets making it combat worthy, all modifications the British asked for. The B-24C had US turrets and turbosuperchargers.

 

[EwenS]

The original French 159 Aircraft / 6 British aircraft contract (total 165) for the LB-30 was reduced to 139 in exchange for the early delivery from US contracts of

6 YB-24 referred to as LB-30A and
20 B-24A referred to as LB-30B

While 120 squadron received 3 LB-30B Liberators on 8 June 1941 and a few more shortly after, these were for training purposes only and were not equipped to the operational standards. After service with 120 these aircraft became transports later in 1941.

AM928 (c/n 19) is credited as the "first completely fitted operational Liberator I". Having arrived at Prestwick on 2 June 1941, it was tested in its new configuration with 20mm gun pack, ASV etc on 6 Aug 1941 before being delivered to 120 the next day. It was the first of only 11 such Liberator GR.I conversions (only 10 with the cannon pack) made through to early 1942. All of which initially went to 120 squadron. 120 however did not fly its first operational Liberator sortie until 20 Sept 1941.

 

[nuuumannn]

Not into Bomber Command and not in June 1941. Liberator I entered service with Coastal Command in June 1941. The LB-30A were the YB-24 originally ordered by the USAAF diverted to Britain, the Liberator I/B-24A/LB-30B came from the French contract, then came the Liberator II/B-24B/LB-30, again from the French contract. The first Liberator II was accepted in the US in August 1941. The LB-30A and LB-30B are reported as Liberator I in UK imports, 25 from March to August 1941, the first LB-30A arrived on 14 March 1941, first Liberator I arrived on 9 April 1941, the first Liberator II on 27 September 1941.

I'm not sure what you are debating here, my sources state June 1941, clearly they are out, by three months. You are arguing over three months delivery time, when you originally said Bomber Command did not have bomber Liberators until 1944. I was out by three months, you were out by three years, Geoff. To reassert, Liberator Mk.IIs entered Bomber Command service in 1941, not Coastal Command, Bomber Command in 1941.

 

[SaparotRob]

A bit of a thread jack. Are there anecdotal reports of Commonwealth pilots' opinions on flying the Liberators? I'm not talking about in combat but rather pilot impressions of the machine. Was it pleasant to fly? I'd also love anything on my all time favorite, the Fortress, if ya' got 'em.

 

[nuuumannn]

A bit of a thread jack. Are there anecdotal reports of Commonwealth pilots' opinions on flying the Liberators? I'm not talking about in combat but rather pilot impressions of the machine. Was it pleasant to fly? I'd also love anything on my all time favorite, the Fortress, if ya' got 'em.

There's a challenge. I'll see what I have. I'm sure others like Geoff might be able to offer more.

 

[Simon Thomas]

My grandfather's neighbour flew Liberators with the RAAF. He said that the only reason they took off was the curvature of the earth.

Frank Ball TAA Manager: A Remarkable 1980-1985 Era

Frank Ball TAA Manager from 1980 to 1985 — wartime pilot, aviation pioneer, and the steady leadership that guided TAA through recession.

www.taamuseum.com.au

 

[nuuumannn]

Eric Winkle Brown on the B-24: His first experience with the Liberator was a B-24D in 1944 during engine out trials at Farnborough.

"The view from the cockpit was surprisingly restricted on the ground, but taxying was made very easy by the tricycle undercarriage. For take-off, half flap was lowered and the engine cowl gills fully closed. Even applying almost full power before releasing the brakes, acceleration was poor and the take-off run long to unstick at 115 mph."

"Stability on the climb and in cruising flight was positive about all three axes, and the controls, which were all fabric covered, were effective but very heavy. It really was like driving a London bus rather than flying an aeroplane. Thank heaven it had a wonderful autopilot."

"The tests on engine failure characteristics showed that if an outer engine was cut the aircraft yawed vigorously and swung over into a dive, which reached about 45 degrees, so that the limiting speed of 310 mph indicated airspeed was reached fairly quickly. Corrective action had to be taken by throttling back the opposite outer engine and easing out of the dive. The time from cut to correcting movement of the controls was 17 seconds, which compared favourably with 10 sec on the Halifax and 15 sec on the Lancaster."

"Although the Liberator appeared on the scene some four years after the Flying Fortress, it had a very small advantage in speed or range over the B-17 and was more complicated to fly and handled less well."

Unfortunately I don't have anything from Brown that talks about what he thought of the B-17.

In a book I have, Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment report information on the Fortress Mk.I, which 90 Sqn had so much trouble with was favourable, all things considered.

"The Fortress Mk.I created a very favourable impression for its ease of handling, even with two engines at idle, but not feathered, and particularly for its comfort."

"Small stick movement by the pilot operated tabs on the elevator or rudder, but larger movements fed directly to these control surfaces; this feature together with an appropriate stability made handling easy and precise."

"Most praise was the warmth of the crew area at 30,000 feet (-55 deg C outside) and the relative quiet achieved with copious sounds-proofing combined with favourable positioning of the engine exhausts. The navigator's position was roomy with a good view; the only criticism of this first version of the type was the lack of blackout curtains."

Performance with the Cyclone R-1820-73 was outstanding at height with a ceiling of 34,000 ft from a maximum weight (49,360 lb) take-off, although great care had to be taken to avoid damage above 25,000 ft by overspeeding of the exhaust driven turbocharger."

In the section on the Fortress II is mention of the use of the Norden bomb sight: "Seven flying hours with the Norden auto-flight system demonstrated its ability to control turns at all speeds and to hold heading even with two engines on one side fully throttled - the resulting sideslip was, however, uncomfortable."

 

[SaparotRob]

Eric Winkle Brown on the B-24: His first experience with the Liberator was a B-24D in 1944 during engine out trials at Farnborough.

"The view from the cockpit was surprisingly restricted on the ground, but taxying was made very easy by the tricycle undercarriage. For take-off, half flap was lowered and the engine cowl gills fully closed. Even applying almost full power before releasing the brakes, acceleration was poor and the take-off run long to unstick at 115 mph."

"Stability on the climb and in cruising flight was positive about all three axes, and the controls, which were all fabric covered, were effective but very heavy. It really was like driving a London bus rather than flying an aeroplane. Thank heaven it had a wonderful autopilot."

"The tests on engine failure characteristics showed that if an outer engine was cut the aircraft yawed vigorously and swung over into a dive, which reached about 45 degrees, so that the limiting speed of 310 mph indicated airspeed was reached fairly quickly. Corrective action had to be taken by throttling back the opposite outer engine and easing out of the dive. The time from cut to correcting movement of the controls was 17 seconds, which compared favourably with 10 sec on the Halifax and 15 sec on the Lancaster."

"Although the Liberator appeared on the scene some four years after the Flying Fortress, it had a very small advantage in speed or range over the B-17 and was more complicated to fly and handled less well."

Unfortunately I don't have anything from Brown that talks about what he thought of the B-17.

In a book I have, Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment report information on the Fortress Mk.I, which 90 Sqn had so much trouble with was favourable, all things considered.

"The Fortress Mk.I created a very favourable impression for its ease of handling, even with two engines at idle, but not feathered, and particularly for its comfort."

"Small stick movement by the pilot operated tabs on the elevator or rudder, but larger movements fed directly to these control surfaces; this feature together with an appropriate stability made handling easy and precise."

"Most praise was the warmth of the crew area at 30,000 feet (-55 deg C outside) and the relative quiet achieved with copious sounds-proofing combined with favourable positioning of the engine exhausts. The navigator's position was roomy with a good view; the only criticism of this first version of the type was the lack of blackout curtains."

Performance with the Cyclone R-1820-73 was outstanding at height with a ceiling of 34,000 ft from a maximum weight (49,360 lb) take-off, although great care had to be taken to avoid damage above 25,000 ft by overspeeding of the exhaust driven turbocharger."

In the section on the Fortress II is mention of the use of the Norden bomb sight: "Seven flying hours with the Norden auto-flight system demonstrated its ability to control turns at all speeds and to hold heading even with two engines on one side fully throttled - the resulting sideslip was, however, uncomfortable."

I'll take that as a win.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

A bit of a thread jack. Are there anecdotal reports of Commonwealth pilots' opinions on flying the Liberators? I'm not talking about in combat but rather pilot impressions of the machine. Was it pleasant to fly? I'd also love anything on my all time favorite, the Fortress, if ya' got 'em.

I can't speak to Commonwealth pilot opinion, but American opinion was that it was kinda a pig to fly, requiring a lot of strength and attention. The -17 on the other hand was reputed to be a little silkier.

 

[ThomasP]

All(?) of the pilot accounts I have read say the B-17 handled well. while most of the B-24 pilot accounts say the it was a bit of a pain to fly - with 'heavy controls' and 'difficult to fly in formation' being frequent comments.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

I'll take that as a win.

View attachment 820482