Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yes, the father of one of my best friends when growing up was a pilot in that squadron. He had two P-38's, Gizmo 1, and Gizmo II, after a squadron mate wrecked the first one.Tell that to the 54th Fighter Squadron, that deployed to Alaska in June, 1942 with their P-38Es.
Excellent summation. An addition is the oft used question mark - e.g. was the _________ the best _______ of the war ?Some thoughts to begin with:
Finally, you've got to weigh in the experiences and biases of whose accounts you want to believe. Not many have the wealth of experiences of "Winkle" Brown, Gunther Rall or Derek Piggot. We're relying on accounts of flyers of that aircraft or worse, war correspondents.
- Whenever someone sets up comparisons, they first have to establish parameters and criteria ... and in doing so, they influence, bias and often dictate the results. (Or as in political "studies:" You get the results you pay for!)
- Perhaps the most useless words in a historical discussion are the superlatives: First, Last, Fastest, Highest, or (HORRORS!!) Best! Usually you wind up with with so many descriptive adjectives and modifiers to make the point all but meaningless, and will ALWAYS become red meat for dissenters.
- When I was in the military, the best airplane was almost invariably the one you were flying, and the two best duty stations were the one before this one and the next one you were going to next.
Per the latter, they did most of their reporting from Mayfair pubs, thus AAF aircraft operating out of England automatically gained a halo. Few if any "journalists" ventured to the uncomfortable North Africa, Eastern Front, South Pacific, CBI or aboard sweltering/freezing ships.
Because of range/ceiling advantages (or sometimes, limitations) B-24s, C-46s, P-38s, P-39s, P-40s often provided yeoman service with little notice.
Even though B-24s were common in the English 8th Air Force, perhaps it was their range advantage or just luck of the draw, B-24 units were somehow further away from London, thus their tales didn't get into print as easily.
That is not to minimize the problems of B-24 or C-46 more complex systems, but remember that the whole technology was advancing far faster than quality control and testing could keep up with. B-17 and C-47 teething problems were generally resolved pre-war. The cost of resolving B-29 issues could likely have equipped the entire 8th AF bomber fleet for the entire conflict ... and they're generally glossed over.
Excellent summation. An addition is the oft used question mark - e.g. was the _________ the best _______ of the war ?
The question mark will automatically lead to an automatic polarisation of yes vs no. That's why you see so many headlines that are
a question. In other words, it's a good way to start an argument.
P-38 is more expensive to maintain with no gain over the other airframes. That is important after the war with downsizing.In the drastic post war downsizing, note that maintenance and standardization made the P-51 and a few P-47 fighter bomber units the only survivors for Reserve and ANG roles ... no mission on the horizon for P-38.
In terms of aeshetic the B-17 is definitely overrated and boring.
A much more startlng view:View attachment 707730
As long as we're not talking pretty, I quite agree.Anybody else has a soft spot for the Lib's exterior?
Neither the B-17 nor the B-24 had front turrets at the start, which is why I dont understand the articles claim about the B-24 having better defensive armament, it depends on which model you choose.As long as we're not talking pretty, I quite agree.
Moreover, I often catch my self thinking about the models without the nose turret as the four engined B-25.
Note that the B-24 presaged efficient designs of the future, maximizing the lessons being learned from sailplane advances, increasing efficiency by incorporating high aspect ratios and flush riveting. Previous bombers/transports were tied to biplane trusses or massive spars, and with stressed skin designs, since then wings keep getting longer and slimmer.The Liberator looks just so much more intriguing with its shoulder-mounted, slender high-aspect-ratio Davis wing shape and profile contrasting the boxcar fuselage, dog snout and weird vertical stabilizers!
And the modification state. The Hawaian Air Depot fitted its first nose turret to a B-24D in late 1942 (it was photographed on Midway in Nov 1942 ahead of its participation in a raid on Wake Is in Dec before being sent back to the US to be examined in detail). Conversions undertaken both in Hawaii and at Townsville, Australia. It was mid-1943 before other modification centres began their conversions.Neither the B-17 nor the B-24 had front turrets at the start, which is why I dont understand the articles claim about the B-24 having better defensive armament, it depends on which model you choose.
As a pinned down ground pounder which looks better ... an A-10 or a F-22?
During my brief period as a lecturer at Fort McNair War College, I found a paper (IIRC from another Staff College) where a graduate had analyzed effectiveness of various gunner positions. The nose gunners led, which he postulated was due to attacker tactics and the ability to concentrate fire without having to lead the target.And the modification state. The Hawaian Air Depot fitted its first nose turret to a B-24D in late 1942 (it was photographed on Midway in Nov 1942 ahead of its participation in a raid on Wake Is in Dec before being sent back to the US to be examined in detail).
I'm avoiding the whole Hurricane Wildcat thing.
Sorry. It probably wasn't. It was a horrible and ungainly aircraft to fly. Evasive manoeuvres difficult, if not impossible. Dad said It handled like a cow. It did however have it's role as long range maritime patrol aircraft.B-24 was better…
It was the future, the B-17 was the end of the past
B-24 was better…
It was the future, the B-17 was the end of the past