Halifax and Liberator Bombers and Transports

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

the RAF didn't really do much nose art, most planes had names and for every raid they went on most would paint a 'lil bomb on the side, if you ever see the BBMF lancaster, that's got mickey mouse on it.............
Thanks for the help. I made the usumption that the RAF used the mission markers, the little, bombs as did the USAAF. I have seen a photo of a Lanc with a name painted on the side, but only one. So I ges the over the top, Pinup or comic art is all USAAF airman and groundcrews. It dose seem fitting, we seem to want to have a pritty girl or comic with up all the time.

Lanc, you have been a great help even in some of our disagreements, I still enjoy reading your posts.
You were looking for a pic like these?

You are both welcome. Samu, the Second Pic I have seen simmilar and looks like a Mk III, but please help if it is not. The second I do not recognize and looks different from the normal Halifax.

Also any help with missions or information on paratroop drops would be great.
C.C. I will agree that the Halifax is a plane one can get behind. I am fond of it, just behind B-24 and is my favorate RAF bomber. But why is it that here and on other sites I find that, well the Liberator gets no love?

As for the Pe-8 we should move that to the bombers topic, or just keep it here:) I need to do some more reading on it, but do you have any places to start? I know it was a good plane, but I would love more facts about it.
B-24s are bad...PB4Ys are great...Go Navy! :lol:

It probably has something to do with the fact that it's sort of ugly, and you rarely hear about them compared to B-17s, Ju88s, He 111s, Lancasters, Halifaxes, etc
Archer, A b-24 was not ugly, yes they did look less atractive then the B-17, but not the Lancaster, or even the He-111. :p

AS for the PB4Y they were B-24s at first! The Navy used B-24s then asked Consolidated to redesign for longrange Naval use, as you I hope know. But the PB4Y dose have the power waist turrets that just looked cool but I am not shure how well they worked. :oops:

But anywho that is the base of the arguments. We should talk more about the B-24 here! I served the war well and the Allies. It is sad that such a great service record but it dose not get the press. :cry:
Thanks Lanc! I know that means a lot from you, thought you would bash the B-17 any chance you have. Question why do you dislike it? Also what USAAF bomber do you like? 8)
The bomber was developed for the fast pacific, but would have been put into the ETO I think. Hell Yes the Germans would have been bombed! It might have been a harder choice or had to been done with more tact or a warning, but as it was when the project was on line Germany was done. They were surendering faster then GI's could take them to the pens. That said the ETO was being well served by the B-17s, B-26, Halifax, and Lancaster, and others so why add a new aircraft and move all the vetern crews to it, when you just send it to the Pacific where it can do a great job. But it did take its lumps and the B-24s made the B-29 look good by helkping the Leathernecks take Iwo. :p
That was part of the thinking I have read about the use of the B-29 in the ETO. But mostly I have to think that the war was already almost over when the B-29 was ready to join.

Question, how would I put a pic on my sig such as yours? ;)
Lancaster, thanks. I need to get the URL, then I will ask you again. I might be able to figure it out, but asking is never bad. Question dose it matter if the pic is copyrighted? ;)

Users who are viewing this thread