Greatest aviation myth this site “de-bunked”.

[fastmongrel]

Why was that?

I have heard two reasons. 1 the B24 had a higher wing loading. 2 the B24 was less manoeuvrable at altitude possibly linked to No1.

Apart from that I got nothing as the bombing campaign isn't really something that interests me. Now paint the B24 or B17 white and load them with Depth charges and ASV radar and I'm interested.

 

[jayastout]

Anecdotal, but one of the B-24 fellas I interviewed said that he made a recommendation that no one under 160 pounds be selected to fly B-24s because the controls were VERY heavy. Consequently, they might have been more difficult to fly in close formation.

 

[Vincenzo]

8th AF B-17 bombing Europe from 35,000 ft

 

[GrauGeist]

Another myth that was scrutinized and debunked here was the Italian P-38 supposedly used to attack Allied bombers.

 

[Juha3]

It may have been because the B-24 had a higher wing loading.

Interestingly, the B-24 seemed to have a lower loss rate than the B-17 in the hands of the Eighth Air Force; see The Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress vs. the Consolidated B-24 Liberator - Warfare History Network

Read most of the article, to me it seems to have a little tendency. Were Ploesti and Wiener-Neustadt better protected than Leuna, Krupps works in the Ruhr Valley or Berlin? I'm a bit sceptical.
I came across the fact that B-24 seemed to have a lower loss rate than the B-17 in the hands of the Eighth Air Force in mid-70s while readeing parts of the Medical Services Volume of the US Army official history of the WW2 series but it also says that according to rumours the most dangerous missions were given to B-17 groups. Not sure if those rumours hold water but my recollection is that the 1st or 3rd Bomber Divisions (the B-17 divs) usually were the van division and German fighters usually tried to hit the van first in their head-on attacks.

 

[SaparotRob]

I imagine any mission that someone was shooting at me would be the most dangerous mission.

 

[Andrew Arthy]

Another myth that was scrutinized and debunked here was the Italian P-38 supposedly used to attack Allied bombers.

This reminded me of some primary source material I found about this many years ago. From the 12th Bomber Command Intops summary of 11 August 1943: "40 unescorted 301st BG B-17s attacked Terni railroad yards at 10:29. 1 B-17 shot down by hostile P-38, crashed in water at 41-10N, 12-00E, 7 chutes seen to open." [USAFHRA Microfilm Roll No. A6336]

And also: "B-17 shot down on 11.08.43 by hostile P-38. Attack began five minutes after coast was left. Attack was "persistent and aggressive" for fifteen minutes. A P-38 had been identified on Guidonia airfield by PR on several occasions since 25.07.43, the latest being 09:30 11.08.43. Enemy P-38 had black or very dark fuselage, with two white or yellow bands halfway between tail assembly and fuselage. Behind bands was black swastika etched in white. Twin red air scoops of P-38 were seen."

Plus: "Tan P-38 seen to follow 320th BG for around 40 miles over sea on return leg of mission to Grazzionise."

And from 14 August 1943: "P-38 seen again at Guidonia after a few days absence."

From 20 August 1943: "B-25s attacking Benevento marshalling yards report being shadowed by tan P-38. Bombs dropped 13:33. P-38 followed formation 3,000 feet below for ten to fifteen minutes and then headed back to Italy." That was the last mention I could find of the Italian P-38.

The 419th BS/301st BG diary notes on 11 August 1943: "Plane #0307 was the first plane to be lost by enemy action since operating in North Africa. This plane was shot down by a P-38 with German markings which had been captured by the Germans ..."

Shores et al. confirm the Italian P-38 victory on pages 279-280 of Mediterranean Air War Volume 4. So the Allies certainly thought that one of their bombers was downed by an Axis-flown P-38.

Cheers,
Andrew A.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Legend was, an Italian captured P-38 was approaching U.S. bomber formations in U.S. markings and "tagging along" only to suddenly attack them - this tale was in one of Caidin's books: "Fork Tail Devil - the P-38".

There was indeed a P-38 captured by the Italians when it accidently landed at Sardinia and it was evaluated against native types and then on 11 August 43, it was used to down a B-24 by Col. Tondi in Regia Aeronautica colors.
It did not last long, however, as the engines soon gave out and it was grounded for lack of parts.

So there was an Italian P-38 used to down a B-24 (and possibly a B-17), but not a "persistant phantom" as told in the book.

I meant to also add that the Italians were also testing a new heavy fighter around this same time period at Guidonia, the Savoia-Marchetti SM.91, which bore a strong resemblance to the P-38.

 

[SaparotRob]

The Legend was, an Italian captured P-38 was approaching U.S. bomber formations in U.S. markings and "tagging along" only to suddenly attack them - this tale was in one of Caidin's books: "Fork Tail Devil - the P-38".

There was indeed a P-38 captured by the Italians when it accidently landed at Sardinia and it was evaluated against native types and then on 11 August 43, it was used to down a B-24 by Col. Tondi in Regia Aeronautica colors.
It did not last long, however, as the engines soon gave out and it was grounded for lack of parts.

So there was an Italian P-38 used to down a B-24 (and possibly a B-17), but not a "persistant phantom" as told in the book.

Were there any other reports of captured Allied aircraft attacking Allied formations?

 

[SaparotRob]

In the thread regarding the ME-110 someone mentioned "the myth of the Luftwaffe being a tactical Air Force only is still alive". Being an aeronautical novice I thought that was true. I wonder if someone would shed some light on this. Maybe Tomo Pauk might know who to ask.

 

[GrauGeist]

Were there any other reports of captured Allied aircraft attacking Allied formations?

Yes and no.

The Axis distributed bulk captured aircraft (such as French, Dutch, Norwegian, etc.) among each other but they were painted in that nation's markings and paint-scheme. Even the captured P-40Es in Japanese service bore IJA markings.

When Germany captured the latest Allied aircraft (P-47, P-51, Spitfire, etc.) they were typically marked with German recognition markings and used for evaluation, training and in cases of bombers, for transportation of supplies and agent insertion, but rarely for action against Allied aircraft.

 

[SaparotRob]

Yes and no.

The Axis distributed bulk captured aircraft (such as French, Dutch, Norwegian, etc.) among each other but they were painted in that nation's markings and paint-scheme. Even the captured P-40Es in Japanese service bore IJA markings.

When Germany captured the latest Allied aircraft (P-47, P-51, Spitfire, etc.) they were typically marked with German recognition markings and used for evaluation, training and in cases of bombers, for transportation of supplies and agent insertion, but rarely for action against Allied aircraft.

I've seen pictures of captured allied aircraft with axis markings, the reverse as well. Either side would of course test them. You did, however, say "but rarely for action against Allied aircraft." It's the word "rarely" I'm asking about. Just a turn of phrase or was there another incident?

 

[GrauGeist]

Rarely, like the instance in 1943, where a B-24 with 392nd BG markings (which was not yet active) joined a formation of B-24s from the 44th BG, later departing the formation.

There were other isolated cases, but by and large, any captured aircraft that was pressed into service, carried that nation's markings, like the afore-mentioned Regia Aeronautica P-38.

 

[ktank]

Yet a great many Americans equate a "Bristish accent" with high IQ and competence.
Why Do British Accents Sound Intelligent to Americans?

And in how many US TV series and movies are people with upper-crust British accents the villains?

 

[GrauGeist]

James Bond and the Saint (aka Simon Templar) were always badass (and the hero).

 

[fastmongrel]

James Bond and the Saint (aka Simon Templar) were always badass (and the hero).

Apart from Daniel Craigs Bond who looks like he is suffering from a bad case of constipation.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Apart from Daniel Craigs Bond who looks like he is suffering from a bad case of constipation.

Blasphemy, Craig's Bond is second only to Sean Connery.

 

[BiffF15]

Blasphemy, Craig's Bond is second only to Sean Connery.

I always held Sean in the number 1 Bond spot. Until Daniel Craig. Both executed the role very well, just differently.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[SaparotRob]

Mr. Connery is Bond, James Bond. Roger Moore is the Saint. But John Cleese is the best Q hands down.
Who is Daniel Craig?

 

[davparlr]

To hijack this site some more, who is the best Bond girl? In my mind, always, Diana Rigg, the Avenger girl.