Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
And you state that after a google search?1) It was in limited use in the Pacific until the end of 1942 then used as armed transports
Good on you2) yes, I should have said Europe not the England (slip of the keyboard).
There you are totally full of it - the B-17 structurally and system wise was compatible if not superior to anything operated during the era - corrugated wing structure covered with aluminum skin, the same constriction used on the P-38 and many other WW2 combat aircraft.3) B-17 systems was very much obsolete before WWII - do your homework on the B-17 structure. The systems, flight controls, defenses were all top of the line in 1938 and well surpassed by 1942.
It wasn't a medium bomber - it competed against a medium bomber on the initial contract competition (B-18). Compare the bombload of the B-17 to other medium bombers of the period (B-18. B-23. B-25)4) B-17 was definitely a medium bomber - just because you put balls on the queen does not change the original AAC specifications followed by Boeing when designing the B-17
Show us your reference for that!5) the 15th AF had serious talks with the 8th AF to swap out the 5th BW's for B-24 groups that were inbound to the 8th.
Because it was too stupid to comment on!6) I noticed you did not disagree that RAF Bassingbourne was called the Country Club by the press !
And I guess you're neither!That's the difference between being a B-17 historian vs being a B-17 fanboy, when you read several thousand combat reports, S-3 reports, accident reports, unit reports, engineering reports you learn how to find the truth vs somebody that only watches 12-o'clock high reruns.
Are they in comic book form or a coloring book?I have 4 B-17 books published, a 5th book on the way and a 15th AF war diary
What have you done
Well, look at you go...and calling me a Karen.Try reading slowly and enunciating the words - the B-17 really (again note the word really) was only used by the 8th AF in England.
1) There was 35 x B-17 units in England
2) There was 6 x B-17 units in Italy.
Majority of the B-17 units (really used) was over England
Don't be a Karen
It was a great show - I learned everything I need to know about the B-17 from that show!I have very fond memories of watching a new TV show called "12 O'Clock High" with my Dad when I was a child.
Famous picture of B-17s in England or Italy
View attachment 646639b 17 pearl harbor - Bing
Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.www.bing.com
I wish I can give you bacon as wellThat was shot down over Helsinki by Väinämöinen Lemminkäinen flying a Gloster Gamecock during the battle of Ei Tapahtunut. He had just previously shot down a Spitfire a Bf 109 and two P-51s prior to attacking this ungainly, helpless bird, thus tying his record for a single sortie.
I'm sorry I'll go away now.
You may be a flaming asshat, but I'll have to ponder more on the probability.Try reading slowly and enunciating the words - the B-17 really (again note the word really) was only used by the 8th AF in England.
1) There was 35 x B-17 units in England
2) There was 6 x B-17 units in Italy.
Majority of the B-17 units (really used) was over England
Don't be a Karen
The reason that B-17 BG assignment to all theatres was the extremely high priority to ETO/MTO for USSTAF and the task of destroying the LW and German industy base.1) It was in limited use in the Pacific until the end of 1942 then used as armed transports
Brainfart from eating too many crayons.2) yes, I should have said Europe not the England (slip of the keyboard).
Ah an airframe structures Expert. We can chat. As to defenses, 1938 armament was clearly Inferior to the task to be faced in ETO and major strides were made to improve - with power turrets and computing gunsights. Quick test - name other heavy bombers that match up? B-29, yes. But B-24 slightly inferior.3) B-17 systems was very much obsolete before WWII - do your homework on the B-17 structure. The systems, flight controls, defenses were all top of the line in 1938 and well surpassed by 1942.
Ohh, dirty talk and glib remarks. I sense a keyboard warrior in sunglasses and 50 mission hat with a stub of a cigar as you fight for control of a hostile 'ether'.4) B-17 was definitely a medium bomber - just because you put balls on the queen does not change the original AAC specifications followed by Boeing when designing the B-17
So, what. The fighter threat in MTO was less severe for the lower ceiling capable B-24, so slightly less bomb load/but greater range was appealing to Eaker and Twining.5) the 15th AF had serious talks with the 8th AF to swap out the 5th BW's for B-24 groups that were inbound to the 8th.
So, what? And BTW someday when you learn to spell Bassingbourn (no 'e') you may graduate to student - level one. Is that above or below 'B-17 Fanboy'.6) I noticed you did not disagree that RAF Bassingbourne was called the Country Club by the press !
That's the difference between being a B-17 historian vs being a B-17 fanboy, when you read several thousand combat reports, S-3 reports, accident reports, unit reports, engineering reports you learn how to find the truth vs somebody that only watches 12-o'clock high reruns.
... it would be desirable to increase B-17 production and decrease that of the B-24, because the former airplane is a much more effective combat weapon.
I have 42 years of aviation experience (maintenance, flight ops and quality assurance) and am well aware of how the B-17 is constructed. Structure, flight controls and some systems were pretty generic for aircraft of that era. By this and other dribble you have stated on this forum, I'm wondering what kind of aircraft experience you have besides generic books and possibly a commercial flight or two????3) B-17 systems was very much obsolete before WWII - do your homework on the B-17 structure. The systems, flight controls, defenses were all top of the line in 1938 and well surpassed by 1942.
100% true! It took the B-29 to OFFICIALLY make that happenIt is true, that with the introduction of the B-29, General Doolittle envisioned reclassifying B-17s and B-24s as mediums, and discontinuing the B-25 and B-26.
Don't be a Karen
That's the funny thing about names, especially in UK , you either know or you dont and its right or its wrong, there are no rules in place at all.So, what? And BTW someday when you learn to spell Bassingbourn (no 'e') you may graduate to student - level one. Is that above or below 'B-17 Fanboy'.
Puleeze dont leave us hanging in breathless anticpation. Enumerate the titles and publishers that you are showcasing to present expertise. Don't hold back - we will bask in your glory.I have 4 B-17 books published, a 5th book on the way and a 15th AF war diary
What have you done
I have 5 B-17 books published -- what have you done ?
What are those books?
And you state that after a google search?
Good on you
There you are totally full of it - the B-17 structurally and system wise was compatible if not superior to anything operated during the era - corrugated wing structure covered with aluminum skin, the same constriction used on the P-38 and many other WW2 combat aircraft.
It wasn't a medium bomber - it competed against a medium bomber on the initial contract competition (B-18). Compare the bombload of the B-17 to other medium bombers of the period (B-18. B-23. B-25)
Show us your reference for that!
Because it was too stupid to comment on!
And I guess you're neither!