User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 7:42:32 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was a pretty good bomber until Lend Lease gave us plans on the proposed Russian heavy bomber, which eventually became the B-29. Oddly enough, we put them into the air long before the Soviets could (took the Russians until 1949). I hope you're trying to be funny. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 7:44:59 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Using that logic, the Garand was not a WWII rifle. Exactly. OP's premise for this thread is lame. Anyone with a passing interest in B-17s already knows it existed prior to our entering into WW2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 7:47:22 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is a common misconception. The Russians spent more money developing the Tu-4 (even with assistance from the US) than they did on their own atomic weapons program. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Wut? The Soviets did a straight-up, rivet-for-rivet COPY of the B-29, from interned examples that had made emergency landings on their territory before the Commies came in against Japan. Otherwise, they only had 1 4-engined bomber in service in all of WW2. Development of the B-29 started with a specification for a super-heavy payload, very-long-range, fast bomber being issued in 1939, before the US was in WW2 and before we were doing any Lend-Lease to the Soviets. Hell, the B-29 was ordered into serial production in about May-June of 1941, before Hitler even invaded Russia, also before the test program had really gotten underway. Plus, Lend-Lease was not exactly a transactional thing. It was us and Britain giving the Russkies supplies, vehicles, food, fuel, etc. to keep them in the War because they were on the brink. This is a common misconception. The Russians spent more money developing the Tu-4 (even with assistance from the US) than they did on their own atomic weapons program. Sunday morning comedy is the best comedy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 7:47:38 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And the bullet holes They copied the repair patches on aircraft's skin, not the bullet holes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 8:10:01 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was a pretty good bomber until Lend Lease gave us plans on the proposed Russian heavy bomber, which eventually became the B-29. Oddly enough, we put them into the air long before the Soviets could (took the Russians until 1949). The B-29 had been under development since '38, and was unrelated to the Pe-8. The Tu-4 the Soviets made in '49 that looked like the B-29? Yeah, they reverse engineered interned B-29s, it wasn't a Soviet design. Off the top of my head, the only U.S. combat aircraft we used in WW2 that wasn't designed before it was sorta the P-51, which was based on a North American Aviation idea for a fighter they developed for the British in lieu of getting a license to make P-40s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 8:34:26 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Russians even copied the factory mistakes not understanding they were QC issues. Yep, they even reproduced skin patches from repairs. Stalin said to make a copy down to the last rivet,....that they did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 8:39:12 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I remember a Veterans Day radio broadcast in the 1980s where they were interviewing a B-17 pilot. They threw him a softball question about what he flew. He said he flew B17s and then they asked him what he thought of it. He said it was a piece of junk and was dangerous to fly empty. Fill it with bombs and have the Germans shooting at you and it was suicidal. He had no idea how he was still alive. I was lol and the interviewer was shocked.  It was too slow. A lumbering slow pig to fly the range needed. It could fly a little faster but you lost range. If I had to pick a bomber to crew in WW2 I’d probably opt for the B25 as they were faster. Or the Bolo. .(If you flew a Bolo you were stateside at a training field)  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 8:50:10 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How does anyone brave enough to speak on the topic not know that? IIRC we didn’t always get the crews back either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 8:53:58 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Russians even copied the factory mistakes not understanding they were QC issues. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: It was a pretty good bomber until Lend Lease gave us plans on the proposed Russian heavy bomber, which eventually became the B-29. Oddly enough, we put them into the air long before the Soviets could (took the Russians until 1949). The Soviets did a straight-up, rivet-for-rivet COPY of the B-29, from interned examples that had made emergency landings on their territory before the Commies came in against Japan. Otherwise, they only had 1 4-engined bomber in service in all of WW2. Development of the B-29 started with a specification for a super-heavy payload, very-long-range, fast bomber being issued in 1939, before the US was in WW2 and before we were doing any Lend-Lease to the Soviets. Hell, the B-29 was ordered into serial production in about May-June of 1941, before Hitler even invaded Russia, also before the test program had really gotten underway. Plus, Lend-Lease was not exactly a transactional thing. It was us and Britain giving the Russkies supplies, vehicles, food, fuel, etc. to keep them in the War because they were on the brink. The Russians even copied the factory mistakes not understanding they were QC issues.  Regardless, I doubt Boeing copied or relied on this design for the B-29 at all. Long-range bomber project. The development of a high-altitude long-range bomber with a pressurized cockpit was started by OKB-156 A.N. Tupolev in September 1943 (Buttler, Gordon). Chief Designer D.G. Markov. The choice of options for the aerodynamic schemes of the aircraft is underway, the models are being purged at TsAGI. Design began in May 1944. In August 1944, the Air Force's requirements were adjusted to reduce the requirements for the aircraft's altitude. In September 1944, a full-scale mock-up of the aircraft was completed. In February 1945, the requirements of the Air Force were once again adjusted - an operator of the aircraft's onboard radar was added to the crew. The model was approved on April 27, 1945. The name of the Air Force "Tu-10" was reserved for the aircraft. In the middle of 1945, pilot production began preparations for the production of prototypes of the bomber, the preparation of equipment for the production of the aircraft began, and the production of technical design drawings began. Development was discontinued due to the creation of a copy of the B-29 Superfortress - Tu-4 bomber. The official order of the Ministry of Aviation Industry of the USSR to stop development was issued on April 16, 1947 - simultaneously with the completion of the construction of the first Tu-4. All specified performance characteristics of Tu-64 are design. The Soviet copy of the B-29 was built rather than the Tu-10, so it's not like that design was superior in any way. m |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 8:58:48 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A zoomed in portion of a picture I scanned from a large format negative found in the closet of my grandparents' house. My grandfather was a B17 ordnance crew member. A friend had the original printed on a huge canvas for my birthday. It's on the wall behind me. I often wonder when exactly and where it was, what the temperature was like, where were they going, where were they coming from? What was the world like at home? How interesting it would be to be able to roll the tape back and see it live. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/168134/Listen_Here_Tojo_Cockpit_Closeup_2nd_Sca-2981960.JPG @mancow My grandpa was in the machine shop at the one of the strategic air depots in England, he told me a story that towards the end of the war they would take the some base crew "sight-seeing" over Germany. At least until one of the trips got hit with resistance. Not sure if he said they lost anyone or any of the planes, but no more sight-seeing after that. One of his pics from his time. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 9:02:29 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wut? The Soviets did a straight-up, rivet-for-rivet COPY of the B-29, from interned examples that had made emergency landings on their territory before the Commies came in against Japan. Otherwise, they only had 1 4-engined bomber in service in all of WW2. Development of the B-29 started with a specification for a super-heavy payload, very-long-range, fast bomber being issued in 1939, before the US was in WW2 and before we were doing any Lend-Lease to the Soviets. Hell, the B-29 was ordered into serial production in about May-June of 1941, before Hitler even invaded Russia, also before the test program had really gotten underway. Plus, Lend-Lease was not exactly a transactional thing. It was us and Britain giving the Russkies supplies, vehicles, food, fuel, etc. to keep them in the War because they were on the brink. They copied the B29 down to the Boeing emblem on the yoke. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 9:06:44 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was a pretty good bomber until Lend Lease gave us plans on the proposed Russian heavy bomber, which eventually became the B-29. Oddly enough, we put them into the air long before the Soviets could (took the Russians until 1949). Guys this is a joke! Come on! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 9:11:22 AM EDT
[#13]
Sure it was.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 9:15:23 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryUsing this today is like going to world war 2 with the Wright Flyer. Or the gulf war with world war 2 planes. Yet here we are with a completely incompetent Air Force procurement system that spends billions on Fighters and nothing for a new bomb truck. A 747 or 767 with a bomb bay would be an upgrade. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 9:21:24 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Huh? The Soviets used a variation of Whitworth and Imperial measurements, mainly a throwback from the czarist days before the Russian Revolution. The variations in measurements are what took the Soviets so long to get the Bear flying, would have easily had it flying by '43 or '44 with more standardized units of measure. Quote HistoryQuoted: The Tu-4 was made from interned B-29s. There was NO assistance from the USA. The B-29s were disassembled and copied and had to be converted from SAE to metric measurements Huh? The Soviets used a variation of Whitworth and Imperial measurements, mainly a throwback from the czarist days before the Russian Revolution. The variations in measurements are what took the Soviets so long to get the Bear flying, would have easily had it flying by '43 or '44 with more standardized units of measure. ...Are you getting your alternative history from a video game or something? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 9:35:57 AM EDT
[#16]
Hence the 17.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 9:36:23 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A zoomed in portion of a picture I scanned from a large format negative found in the closet of my grandparents' house. My grandfather was a B17 ordnance crew member. A friend had the original printed on a huge canvas for my birthday. It's on the wall behind me. I often wonder when exactly and where it was, what the temperature was like, where were they going, where were they coming from? What was the world like at home? How interesting it would be to be able to roll the tape back and see it live. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/168134/Listen_Here_Tojo_Cockpit_Closeup_2nd_Sca-2981960.JPG The original  Attached FileIt crashed in in 1943 in Papua New Gunea  Attached Filehttps://www.tracesofwar.com/sights/123052/Crash-Site-en-Remins-B-17F-25-BO-Listen-Here-Tojo-41-24552.htm |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 9:39:01 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's why it was elegant and the B-24 looked like a fuggin dump truck |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 9:44:42 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is as gay as if OP asked if he preferred circumcised cock over uncircumcised cock. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 9:49:04 AM EDT
[#20]
The Y1B-17 was not a WWII bomber.
 The B-17G was a WWII bomber.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 9:52:43 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep, they even reproduced skin patches from repairs. Stalin said to make a copy down to the last rivet,....that they did. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The Russians even copied the factory mistakes not understanding they were QC issues. Yep, they even reproduced skin patches from repairs. Stalin said to make a copy down to the last rivet,....that they did. US children play "Simon Says" and laugh if they mess up & lose ... In the USSR no one ever wanted to "lose" with "Stalin Says"... Bigger_Hammer 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 9:53:19 AM EDT
[#22]
Correct on it's inception but used primarily during WWII. Things tend to get labeled for the period they were used.
Seen/been in a few of them. They look bigger in the movies and news reels. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 9:54:44 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sunday morning comedy is the best comedy. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wut? The Soviets did a straight-up, rivet-for-rivet COPY of the B-29, from interned examples that had made emergency landings on their territory before the Commies came in against Japan. Otherwise, they only had 1 4-engined bomber in service in all of WW2. Development of the B-29 started with a specification for a super-heavy payload, very-long-range, fast bomber being issued in 1939, before the US was in WW2 and before we were doing any Lend-Lease to the Soviets. Hell, the B-29 was ordered into serial production in about May-June of 1941, before Hitler even invaded Russia, also before the test program had really gotten underway. Plus, Lend-Lease was not exactly a transactional thing. It was us and Britain giving the Russkies supplies, vehicles, food, fuel, etc. to keep them in the War because they were on the brink. This is a common misconception. The Russians spent more money developing the Tu-4 (even with assistance from the US) than they did on their own atomic weapons program. Sunday morning comedy is the best comedy. If we're transposing histories, that might not entirely be inaccurate? Didn't we spend more on the B29 than the Manhattan project? And considering how much bomb Intel the Soviets stole from us, they very well may have spent more on the TU4 than their first nukes as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 9:56:16 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Y1B-17 was not a WWII bomber. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Boeing_Y1B-17_in_flight.jpg The B-17G was a WWII bomber. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/381bg-ridgewell-b-17gs.jpg This. The B17 changed dramatically since its prototype and the final "G" model. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 10:31:13 AM EDT
[#25]
On a recent flight one of the available flics was a history of the B'29. They were building faster than design improvements could be cut in. Configuration management nightmare. There were crews that studied each build and got specific retrofit kits to redo the "new" planes. Kinda woner what might have happened if the Ruskie saps were copying different planes and getting different details
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 10:46:09 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: official historical records.. not articles. facts. FACTS. not myths. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: because you can google it and there is 100's if not thousands of historical papers Google also tells me 81m voted for Biden, global warming is killing the planet, and all the COVID vaccines are perfectly safe....doesn't mean its true. official historical records.. not articles. facts. FACTS. not myths. Evidence isn't the same thing as empirical truth. Just because a historical record says a thing doesn't automatically make it a fact. Lots of reasons why a record might be incorrect. In history as in science there's no facts or truth, just the current balance of evidence. Of course, he's offered nothing at all to support his claim so the balance of evidence is rather heavily weighted against him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 11:13:30 AM EDT
[#27]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 11:14:45 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd love to hear the story behind that. I thought the Tupelov Tu-4 was an exact copy of interned B-29s. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It was a pretty good bomber until Lend Lease gave us plans on the proposed Russian heavy bomber, which eventually became the B-29. Oddly enough, we put them into the air long before the Soviets could (took the Russians until 1949). I'd love to hear the story behind that. I thought the Tupelov Tu-4 was an exact copy of interned B-29s. Must be a graduate of public schools. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 11:21:10 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wut? The Soviets did a straight-up, rivet-for-rivet COPY of the B-29, from interned examples that had made emergency landings on their territory before the Commies came in against Japan. Otherwise, they only had 1 4-engined bomber in service in all of WW2. Development of the B-29 started with a specification for a super-heavy payload, very-long-range, fast bomber being issued in 1939, before the US was in WW2 and before we were doing any Lend-Lease to the Soviets. Hell, the B-29 was ordered into serial production in about May-June of 1941, before Hitler even invaded Russia, also before the test program had really gotten underway. Plus, Lend-Lease was not exactly a transactional thing. It was us and Britain giving the Russkies supplies, vehicles, food, fuel, etc. to keep them in the War because they were on the brink. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It was a pretty good bomber until Lend Lease gave us plans on the proposed Russian heavy bomber, which eventually became the B-29. Oddly enough, we put them into the air long before the Soviets could (took the Russians until 1949). Wut? The Soviets did a straight-up, rivet-for-rivet COPY of the B-29, from interned examples that had made emergency landings on their territory before the Commies came in against Japan. Otherwise, they only had 1 4-engined bomber in service in all of WW2. Development of the B-29 started with a specification for a super-heavy payload, very-long-range, fast bomber being issued in 1939, before the US was in WW2 and before we were doing any Lend-Lease to the Soviets. Hell, the B-29 was ordered into serial production in about May-June of 1941, before Hitler even invaded Russia, also before the test program had really gotten underway. Plus, Lend-Lease was not exactly a transactional thing. It was us and Britain giving the Russkies supplies, vehicles, food, fuel, etc. to keep them in the War because they were on the brink. b29 project was the most expensive of wwII. more expensive than the manhattan project. pressured, high altitude, long rage, heavy bomb load. there were lots of complications with the fuselage, thin aluminum and the pressurized requirement. i doubt we got the 'plans' from the rooshins. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 11:27:53 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Was it a bomber? Was it used in WWII? My exact thought as I was clicking thread title. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 11:31:11 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was a pretty good bomber until Lend Lease gave us plans on the proposed Russian heavy bomber, which eventually became the B-29. Oddly enough, we put them into the air long before the Soviets could (took the Russians until 1949). Actually, the B29 was a US development based on experience from the B15 and B19 bomber programs as well as lessons learned from the B17 and B24 programs. The rudder/tail surfaces of the -29 were pure product-improved B17 E/F/G, while the Davis wing was based largely on lessons learned from the B24 and other aircraft. By the time the US had access to the Soviet large-aircraft engineering data in mid-1942, the B29 was already past the drawing board and the static engineering prototypes and they were under construction (what the military calls LRIP, low-rate initial production). The Soviet designs were OK but were far from the cutting edge and did not have the combination of range/payload/service ceiling/speed necessary for the bombing campaign over the Pacific. The B29 was so advanced over the Soviets that they copied it using captured examples (the USSR was neutral against Japan and would inter any aircraft attacking the Japanese that landed on their territory) as the Tu-4. To be fair, the Soviets did make some excellent improvements, such as overcoming the "in-flight engine fire" issue and others that would never be totally resolved in the original B29 (at least until the B50). |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:41:06 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The B-29 had been under development since '38, and was unrelated to the Pe-8. The Tu-4 the Soviets made in '49 that looked like the B-29? Yeah, they reverse engineered interned B-29s, it wasn't a Soviet design. Off the top of my head, the only U.S. combat aircraft we used in WW2 that wasn't designed before it was sorta the P-51, which was based on a North American Aviation idea for a fighter they developed for the British in lieu of getting a license to make P-40s. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It was a pretty good bomber until Lend Lease gave us plans on the proposed Russian heavy bomber, which eventually became the B-29. Oddly enough, we put them into the air long before the Soviets could (took the Russians until 1949). The B-29 had been under development since '38, and was unrelated to the Pe-8. The Tu-4 the Soviets made in '49 that looked like the B-29? Yeah, they reverse engineered interned B-29s, it wasn't a Soviet design. Off the top of my head, the only U.S. combat aircraft we used in WW2 that wasn't designed before it was sorta the P-51, which was based on a North American Aviation idea for a fighter they developed for the British in lieu of getting a license to make P-40s. The F6F Hellcat and A-26 Invader both came after the first P-51s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:46:30 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Rather, it was a WW 1.5 bomber. If you have the mental capacity to follow, discuss. It was a WWII bomber, in the same sense that the B-52 was a Vietnam war bomber. If you mean it was not designed specifically for the war, then you are correct. However, record numbers of them were produced specifically for the war - that would make them a WWII bomber. The majority built were built specifically for WWII - you cannot argue otherwise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:09:44 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oddly enough, the majority of the extra weight was due to stores of alcohol to cool the avionics packages in the planes...in this case, the Russians carried roughly 325-335 liters of vodka (the majority in the navigators aft hold). Quote HistoryQuoted: However despite those challenges, the prototype Tu-4 weighed only 340 kg (750 lb) more than the B-29, a difference of less than 1%. Oddly enough, the majority of the extra weight was due to stores of alcohol to cool the avionics packages in the planes...in this case, the Russians carried roughly 325-335 liters of vodka (the majority in the navigators aft hold). What the fuck are you even talking about? You can't tell a Tu-4 from a Tu-95 from a Tu-22, apparently. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:10:27 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was a pretty good bomber until Lend Lease gave us plans on the proposed Russian heavy bomber, which eventually became the B-29. Oddly enough, we put them into the air long before the Soviets could (took the Russians until 1949). I always believed the msm globalist lies that the US developed the B29 but this makes much more sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:26:36 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A zoomed in portion of a picture I scanned from a large format negative found in the closet of my grandparents' house. My grandfather was a B17 ordnance crew member. A friend had the original printed on a huge canvas for my birthday. It's on the wall behind me. I often wonder when exactly and where it was, what the temperature was like, where were they going, where were they coming from? What was the world like at home? How interesting it would be to be able to roll the tape back and see it live. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/168134/Listen_Here_Tojo_Cockpit_Closeup_2nd_Sca-2981960.JPG Earlier build model. Pacific due to the Tojo reference on the nose. No chin turret for the Bombardier to fire. Those started with the G model. Probably an F model but, maybe earlier model—they poured most of the F’s into Europe. Finding exactly when and where would be awesome. So much history. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:30:36 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Earlier build model. Pacific due to the Tojo reference on the nose. No chin turret for the Bombardier to fire. Those started with the G model. Probably an F model but, maybe earlier model—they poured most of the F’s into Europe. Finding exactly when and where would be awesome. So much history. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A zoomed in portion of a picture I scanned from a large format negative found in the closet of my grandparents' house. My grandfather was a B17 ordnance crew member. A friend had the original printed on a huge canvas for my birthday. It's on the wall behind me. I often wonder when exactly and where it was, what the temperature was like, where were they going, where were they coming from? What was the world like at home? How interesting it would be to be able to roll the tape back and see it live. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/168134/Listen_Here_Tojo_Cockpit_Closeup_2nd_Sca-2981960.JPG Earlier build model. Pacific due to the Tojo reference on the nose. No chin turret for the Bombardier to fire. Those started with the G model. Probably an F model but, maybe earlier model—they poured most of the F’s into Europe. Finding exactly when and where would be awesome. So much history. Looking at the nose and right side gun, that's a F model. The E had a different nose. Most of the 17's went to the ETO. 24's were more prevalent in the Pacific due to its greater range. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:38:22 PM EDT
[#38]
Shit, I was flying 20+ year old Cobras that were designed before I was born and Apaches that were designed when I was in elementary school
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:38:33 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @mancow My grandpa was in the machine shop at the one of the strategic air depots in England, he told me a story that towards the end of the war they would take the some base crew "sight-seeing" over Germany. At least until one of the trips got hit with resistance. Not sure if he said they lost anyone or any of the planes, but no more sight-seeing after that. One of his pics from his time. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/96732/tenntess_1_JPG-2925032.jpg Awesome! I need to look to see if I happen to have that one in the collection too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:42:46 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: Rather, it was a WW 1.5 bomber. If you have the mental capacity to follow, discuss. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:50:04 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was too slow. A lumbering slow pig to fly the range needed. It could fly a little faster but you lost range. If I had to pick a bomber to crew in WW2 I’d probably opt for the B25 as they were faster. Or the Bolo. .(If you flew a Bolo you were stateside at a training field) I've seen arguments made that something like the DeHaviland Mosquito could have effectively replaced most of the heavy bomber fleet, while saving a lot of lives and resources. Something about going in toting a single bomb, and being able to achieve vastly greater accuracy than a lumbering 4 engined level bomber by employing it in a dive, while being fast and agile enough to make it difficult to intercept. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 2:00:21 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes. But note that I said the A10A. As it was entering service MBTs were being armoured to the point that it's gun was no longer effective and surface to air missiles (especially manpads) were proliferating and then the soviet union collapsed. The fight it was designed for was gone. It had to change tactics substantially to stay relevant and we see that in the C upgrade package's capabilities. I would argue that the A-10 was originally designed around Vietnam requirements and was repurposed as a European theater tank slayer when it became clear that the war would be over before it would be ready. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 2:21:20 PM EDT
[#43]
What other wars was the B17 used in?
If it was first used in WW2, that makes it a WW2 bomber. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 2:22:52 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Exactly. OP's premise for this thread is lame. Anyone with a passing interest in B-17s already knows it existed prior to our entering into WW2. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Using that logic, the Garand was not a WWII rifle. Exactly. OP's premise for this thread is lame. Anyone with a passing interest in B-17s already knows it existed prior to our entering into WW2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 2:27:38 PM EDT
[#45]
For the residents of Dresden, that was a distinction without a difference.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 5:06:23 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've seen arguments made that something like the DeHaviland Mosquito could have effectively replaced most of the heavy bomber fleet, while saving a lot of lives and resources. Something about going in toting a single bomb, and being able to achieve vastly greater accuracy than a lumbering 4 engined level bomber by employing it in a dive, while being fast and agile enough to make it difficult to intercept. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It was too slow. A lumbering slow pig to fly the range needed. It could fly a little faster but you lost range. If I had to pick a bomber to crew in WW2 I’d probably opt for the B25 as they were faster. Or the Bolo. .(If you flew a Bolo you were stateside at a training field) I've seen arguments made that something like the DeHaviland Mosquito could have effectively replaced most of the heavy bomber fleet, while saving a lot of lives and resources. Something about going in toting a single bomb, and being able to achieve vastly greater accuracy than a lumbering 4 engined level bomber by employing it in a dive, while being fast and agile enough to make it difficult to intercept. Those that argue that the Mosquito could have effectively replaced heavy bombers have no idea or knowledge on the Mosquito. Thie “same bomb load as a B17” shows they realistically know nothing about either and are simply retelling the same garbage other uninformed “experts” say. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 5:11:29 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually, the B29 was a US development based on experience from the B15 and B19 bomber programs as well as lessons learned from the B17 and B24 programs. The rudder/tail surfaces of the -29 were pure product-improved B17 E/F/G, while the Davis wing was based largely on lessons learned from the B24 and other aircraft. By the time the US had access to the Soviet large-aircraft engineering data in mid-1942, the B29 was already past the drawing board and the static engineering prototypes and they were under construction (what the military calls LRIP, low-rate initial production). The Soviet designs were OK but were far from the cutting edge and did not have the combination of range/payload/service ceiling/speed necessary for the bombing campaign over the Pacific. The B29 was so advanced over the Soviets that they copied it using captured examples (the USSR was neutral against Japan and would inter any aircraft attacking the Japanese that landed on their territory) as the Tu-4. To be fair, the Soviets did make some excellent improvements, such as overcoming the "in-flight engine fire" issue and others that would never be totally resolved in the original B29 (at least until the B50). Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It was a pretty good bomber until Lend Lease gave us plans on the proposed Russian heavy bomber, which eventually became the B-29. Oddly enough, we put them into the air long before the Soviets could (took the Russians until 1949). Actually, the B29 was a US development based on experience from the B15 and B19 bomber programs as well as lessons learned from the B17 and B24 programs. The rudder/tail surfaces of the -29 were pure product-improved B17 E/F/G, while the Davis wing was based largely on lessons learned from the B24 and other aircraft. By the time the US had access to the Soviet large-aircraft engineering data in mid-1942, the B29 was already past the drawing board and the static engineering prototypes and they were under construction (what the military calls LRIP, low-rate initial production). The Soviet designs were OK but were far from the cutting edge and did not have the combination of range/payload/service ceiling/speed necessary for the bombing campaign over the Pacific. The B29 was so advanced over the Soviets that they copied it using captured examples (the USSR was neutral against Japan and would inter any aircraft attacking the Japanese that landed on their territory) as the Tu-4. To be fair, the Soviets did make some excellent improvements, such as overcoming the "in-flight engine fire" issue and others that would never be totally resolved in the original B29 (at least until the B50). It wasn’t that they made improvements by purpose, but more by necessity due available materials as well as manufacturing abilty. Boeing had numerous changes they wanted to bring on line during construction but were denied by the US Arm Air Corps due to fears of causing production slow down issues as well as training changes. This thinking also kept the P-38 from getting a stick as Lockheed wanted to change to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 5:21:52 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was too slow. A lumbering slow pig to fly the range needed. It could fly a little faster but you lost range. If I had to pick a bomber to crew in WW2 I’d probably opt for the B25 as they were faster. Or the Bolo. .(If you flew a Bolo you were stateside at a training field) The B-17 could take punishment the B-24 only dreamed of. If I was in the Pacific and doing allot of ground attack or anti shipping the B-25 would be a excellent choice, but they were loud as hell inside, I’d rather be in B-26 Marauder or A-26 Invader, both were faster. The B-25H while on paper a beast, in actual use not so much and would crack the longerons and bulkheads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 5:50:25 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Those that argue that the Mosquito could have effectively replaced heavy bombers have no idea or knowledge on the Mosquito. Thie “same bomb load as a B17” shows they realistically know nothing about either and are simply retelling the same garbage other uninformed “experts” say. There’s a lot of interesting history around the Mosquito. But my favorite story is when the Germans, tried to make their own version. Right down to it having the same name. Reportedly it worked well. Then the RAF bombed their glue factory and the substitute glue had this annoying habit of eating away the wood.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 6:08:23 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Y1B-17 was not a WWII bomber. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Boeing_Y1B-17_in_flight.jpg The B-17G was a WWII bomber. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/381bg-ridgewell-b-17gs.jpg @Polupharmarkos The aircraft in the bottom picture belong to my grandfather's unit, the 381st Bomb Group. He was assigned to the 534th Bomb Squadron during the last several months of the war in Europe. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
