MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
A-26B of the 391 Bomb Group in the ETO. Note it has the rarely seen underwing gun packages, which were phased out in favor of six internal .50 cal wing guns and eight gun noses, due to lower drag.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Close enough?It does look like her, but where's Ginger?
344BG Lt Seth Stansted's B-26
I know what you mean. I served on HMS Tiger after they removed the rear turret and replaced it with a hanger for the Sea Kings. I am sure its no surprise when I tell you that a six inch turret weighs many tons more than a hanger. Our mess was basically around the bustle of the fore turret and in any sea it wasn't unusual for the deck to go up and down 30 ft or more. Getting around was sometimes very scary and even dangerous.Awesome pics......just gave me flashbacks to memories I haven't had in years....fighting 30ft+ swells in the North Sea/North Atlantic in a 555ft ship. The whole ship smelled like bug juice and vomit (because it was covered in bug juice and vomit!). For those of you that were never in the Navy, bug juice was the affectionate name given to the "kool aid" produced on the mess decks. The stuff would rot your gut it was so strong. Absolute violence is not a strong enough term for describing/enduring some of these type seas. We were young though, immortal and having a blast just like the smiles you see in the photo of those glorious Vets who preceded us....God Bless them All!!!
Are those Stuka's?FW-190 JG-54 Finland 2 Jul 1944 Colorized photo.
I would have thought the Luftwaffe had more pressing business elsewhere than Finland in that time frame.
View attachment 806217
Yes. original BW photo says they are.Are those Stuka's?
Germany got over 40% of it's iron ore from Sweden during WW2, not helping Finland would put at risk the control of the Baltic sea.FW-190 JG-54 Finland 2 Jul 1944 Colorized photo.
I would have thought the Luftwaffe had more pressing business elsewhere than Finland in that time frame.
View attachment 806217
General Kenny refused to use the A-26 claiming the cockpit view was inadequate. He wanted to retain the B25.Yes, and a B-25 could fly on one engine comfortably while the trainers often could barely manage it and became almost uncontrollable. Even for later light twins the airplane had a higher probability of a fatal mishap if it lost an engine than did single engined airplanes if they lost one. Hence the old saying that the 2nd engine is intended to enable the aircraft to arrive at the crash site promptly.
A friend of mine was 9th PRS Maintenance Chief in India and they had acquired a B-25 originally intended for the Dutch as a hack transport. Unfortunately the Dutch had specified such reduced fuel tankage that the choices were 1. Carry enough gas with a tank in the bomb bay to have decent range or 2. Carry bombs in the bomb bay but be unable to get anywhere. Coming back from one trip the pilots trimmed it up and went back to play cards. My friend got in the pilot's seat and flew the airplane back to their base, the pilot only putting down his cards when they were on final.
And one of the big advantages of the B-25 was that with the big canopy over the pilots, transparent nose, and big windows at the waist gunner positions you could get a good view of everything, not true of most multiengined aircraft.
Doolittle was assigned the task of rehabilitating the reputation of the B-26 in 1942 when the accident rate was well over 100 per 100,000 hours.