User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/12/2023 6:46:00 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IH1026: Found a bunch of WWII training pictures in a dumpster at work.. give me a few days to upload. Williams Field in AZ, 1944, 45'. That will be interesting! I was there as a kid in middle school ‘75 & ‘76. Or house on base was the last row up against the desert. I spent almost every day after school hiking the desert behind the house. There were all kinds of old building foundations out there. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2023 12:25:42 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Leisure_Shoot: A ball turret from the B-17 Flying Fortress "SPOT REMOVER" s/n: 42-30246 of the 390th Bomb Group, 570th Squadron falls into the sea after being unattached from the aircraft in preparation for belly landing on 21/9/43. Pilot landed and crew set plane on fire and was captured and taken as prisoners. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/46582/400037169_369508232256692_50813679540745-3025414.jpg Ball turret POV  Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2023 7:05:12 PM EDT
[#3]
How often did the ball turret fall out due to battle damage? I'd rather be
anywhere then there. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2023 7:16:17 PM EDT
[#4]
I'm 6'4", no way I could fit in that dinky thing.
  
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2023 7:18:19 PM EDT
[#5]
 WW2 Ball Turret with Twin .50 Cals at the Big Sandy Shoot |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2023 8:06:04 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Colt653: I'm 6'4", no way I could fit in that dinky thing. https://i.imgur.com/iXPyBYR.jpg https://i.imgur.com/cSaKmla.jpg https://i.imgur.com/2vpUv77.jpg Growing up, a friend's dad was a ball turret gunner on a B-17. He was a small guy. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2023 8:48:28 PM EDT
[#7]
My great-uncle's wartime office was a B-17 ball turret in the 390th Bomb Group's 571st Bomb Squadron.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2023 9:06:19 PM EDT
[#8]
How does a man survive being BTG and not come home with “issues?”
I’ve long thought that the greatest accomplishment of the Greatest Generation was to come home from combat and lead stable, productive lives. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2023 9:14:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: ACDer]
[#9]
The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner
BY RANDALL JARRELL From my mother’s sleep I fell into the State, And I hunched in its belly till my wet fur froze. Six miles from earth, loosed from its dream of life, I woke to black flak and the nightmare fighters. When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2023 9:26:31 PM EDT
[#10]
Originally Posted By Pogo55: How often did the ball turret fall out due to battle damage? I'd rather be anywhere then there. Well I've never heard that happened, but the weight was carried by a narrow hanger suspended from a single point in a short beam in the fuselage ceiling, one very unlucky 20mm hit or shrapnel in the right place and I guess the ball would depart from the aircraft  Attached FileThere's a ring bolted to the floor for the azimuth gear on the ball to work against, but since the ball passes straight through it when ejected for an emergency belly landing I suppose the machinery is all tucked out of the way and nothing would catch if the hanger was severed  Attached FileThick ceiling ribs for the mount, flimsy belly sheet metal won't catch anything  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2023 10:14:57 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Colt653: I'm 6'4", no way I could fit in that dinky thing. https://i.imgur.com/iXPyBYR.jpg https://i.imgur.com/cSaKmla.jpg https://i.imgur.com/2vpUv77.jpg That's why they put the little guy in there.  529 by jhnstn1, on Flickr 528 by jhnstn1, on Flickr |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2023 11:06:51 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mal_means_bad: "Two women show off a new uniform - including a plastic bra - designed to help prevent occupational accidents among female war workers in Los Angeles in 1943" https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/172926/Two_women_show_off_a_new_uniform_-_inclu-2850442.JPG Someone got a Tit caught in a wringer |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 10:23:05 AM EDT
[#13]
My War by Andy Rooney; the trapped ball gunner
The worst kind of censorship has always been the kind that newspaper people impose on themselves. I was not aware of being in any way a propagandist as a reporter for The Stars and Stripes, but there were stories I didn't write because I didn't like to think of the bomber crews with whom I spent so much time talking, reading them. Too sad. During the two years I covered the air war, there were half a dozen stories I couldn't bring myself to write even though it would have been more honest if I had. I remember one in particular. The Eighth Air Force had a disastrous day when it bombed Regensburg deep inside Germany, and I was at a base waiting to interview some of the fliers when they came back. It was the custom for concerned ground crews and flight crews that hadn't been assigned to go out that day to gather in front of the control tower shortly before the bombers' ETA. (Another good time-saving acronym produced during the war: Estimated Time of Arrival. Most acronyms are used by people who think they make them sound knowledgeable when they use them, but there are some that are useful. The British were good at both acronyms and code names. They were responsible for popularizing the use of such words as "Overlord" for D-Day, "Cobra" for a strike to the south after the breakout at Saint-L , "Mulberry," the name for the prefabricated docks towed across the English Channel to the beaches. I wouldn't be surprised, in spite of their American sound, if the D-Day beaches Juno, Gold, Sword, Omaha, Utah were named by the British. Winston Churchill was referred to cryptically in top-secret memos as "Colonel Warden.") All of us on the ground that day were relieved as specks appeared in the sky over the Channel. As the specks grew to dots and the dots grew to spots, radio reports started coming through and it became certain the ordeal wasn't over. There were dead and dying men on board half a dozen of the group's bombers. There was a frantic call from one radio operator. The ball-turret gunner was trapped in the plastic bubble hanging beneath the B-17. The gears that rotated the ball to put the gunner in position to shoot and then returned him to the position that enabled him to climb out and back up into the aircraft had been hit and were jammed. The ball-turret gunner was caught in a plastic cage. Two of the engines of the B-17 were stopped, about 3,000 pounds of dead weight hanging from the wings. The plane was losing altitude fastand flying at barely 135 miles an hour, close to stall-out speed. The pilot ordered the crew to unload everything on board. "Everything!" he yelled in a command that reached the control tower over the radioman's open microphone. The crew started pitching out machine guns, .50-caliber ammunition tracks, oxygen tanks, and every instrument they could tear loose in an attempt to lighten the load and keep the foundering plane in the air. The pilot opened the petcocks on the fuel tanks to drain them down to the last few gallons. This was common practice when a plane was about to crash because it lessened the chance of fire. I think the gas evaporated before it rained to the ground because I never heard of anything catching fire on being dampened by any of it. The hydraulic system was spewing fluid where the tubing that conveyed it was shot full of holes. The gas tanks were leaking. Nothing worked. The wheels, folded up into the bomber, could not be brought down without its hydraulic system and a belly landing was inevitable. There were eight minutes of gut-wrenching talk among the tower, the pilot, and the man trapped in the ball turret. He knew what comes down first when there are no wheels. We all watched in horror as it happened. We watched as this man's life ended, mashed between the concrete pavement of the runway and the belly of the bomber. I returned to London that night, shaken and unable to write the most dramatic, the most gruesome, the most heart-wrenching story I had ever witnessed. Some reporter. Photo in Masters of the Air:  Attached FileThurleigh Airfield, near Bedford, England  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 5:04:27 PM EDT
[#14]
B-24 belly tunnel gun
 Attached FileReally limited angle  Attached FileLater retractable ball  Attached File Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2023 4:58:11 PM EDT
[#15]
I wonder how many lives that saved.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2023 7:09:38 PM EDT
[#16]
I always wondered how effective the defensive 50bmg firepower was on the B-17 and B-24 bombers
were there gunner any aces ? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2023 2:05:03 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Colt653: I always wondered how effective the defensive 50bmg firepower was on the B-17 and B-24 bombers were there gunner any aces ? From video below: The European theater B-17/B-24 kill ratio was 0.83 German fighters shot down for every 1 US bomber shot down. The Pacific B-29 kill ratio was 11.7 Japanese kills to 1 loss. The B-17/B-24 kill ratio was modified by a post war USAF analysis to account for over-claims experienced by those bombers, which were high due to formation flying and self reporting causing multiple claims on the same kill. B-29's had gun cameras and more solo encounters, so over claiming was nil.  Surprising Results, Bomber Gunner Kill Ratio B-17 vs. B-29 The B-29 kill ratio of 11.7 to 1 is insane. USAAF shot for the moon outfitting the B-29, they had a central fire control officer and five computers that calculated all elements of lead for the gunners, who were in remote sighting stations so they weren't affected by vibration and muzzle flash in the gun turrets. The computerized lead made the B-29 effective gunnery range more than twice that of Japanese interceptors. One gunner could control up to three turrets simultaneously, so attacking interceptors were running the gauntlet into a computer assisted, networked buzzsaw.  Why the WWII B-29 Bomber's Gun System was so Combat Effective Videos the WWIIUSBombers channel, which is a dry but highly informative technical analysis channel on US bombers: https://www.youtube.com/@WWIIUSBombers/videos |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2023 2:56:25 PM EDT
[#18]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2023 9:13:48 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mal_means_bad: @Colt653 Very effective! It was dangerous as hell to attack a US bomber. From video below: The European theater B-17/B-24 kill ratio was 0.83 German fighters shot down for every 1 US bomber shot down. The Pacific B-29 kill ratio was 11.7 Japanese kills to 1 loss. The B-17/B-24 kill ratio was modified by a post war USAF analysis to account for over-claims experienced by those bombers, which were high due to formation flying and self reporting causing multiple claims on the same kill. B-29's had gun cameras and more solo encounters, so over claiming was nil.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSwB1MxaungThe B-29 kill ratio of 11.7 to 1 is insane. USAAF shot for the moon outfitting the B-29, they had a central fire control officer and five computers that calculated all elements of lead for the gunners, who were in remote sighting stations so they weren't affected by vibration and muzzle flash in the gun turrets. The computerized lead made the B-29 effective gunnery range more than twice that of Japanese interceptors. One gunner could control up to three turrets simultaneously, so attacking interceptors were running the gauntlet into a computer assisted, networked buzzsaw. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwNPJgNEyMUVideos the WWIIUSBombers channel, which is a dry but highly informative technical analysis channel on US bombers: https://www.youtube.com/@WWIIUSBombers/videos @Mal_means_bad Thanks He earned a new subscriber 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2023 11:25:00 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mal_means_bad: @Colt653 Very effective! It was dangerous as hell to attack a US bomber. From video below: The European theater B-17/B-24 kill ratio was 0.83 German fighters shot down for every 1 US bomber shot down. The Pacific B-29 kill ratio was 11.7 Japanese kills to 1 loss. The B-17/B-24 kill ratio was modified by a post war USAF analysis to account for over-claims experienced by those bombers, which were high due to formation flying and self reporting causing multiple claims on the same kill. B-29's had gun cameras and more solo encounters, so over claiming was nil. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSwB1MxaungThe B-29 kill ratio of 11.7 to 1 is insane. USAAF shot for the moon outfitting the B-29, they had a central fire control officer and five computers that calculated all elements of lead for the gunners, who were in remote sighting stations so they weren't affected by vibration and muzzle flash in the gun turrets. The computerized lead made the B-29 effective gunnery range more than twice that of Japanese interceptors. One gunner could control up to three turrets simultaneously, so attacking interceptors were running the gauntlet into a computer assisted, networked buzzsaw. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwNPJgNEyMUVideos the WWIIUSBombers channel, which is a dry but highly informative technical analysis channel on US bombers: https://www.youtube.com/@WWIIUSBombers/videos His channel is really good. I thought the episodes on bombers vs UBoats were really surprising. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2023 11:47:32 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mal_means_bad: @Colt653 Very effective! It was dangerous as hell to attack a US bomber. From video below: The European theater B-17/B-24 kill ratio was 0.83 German fighters shot down for every 1 US bomber shot down. The Pacific B-29 kill ratio was 11.7 Japanese kills to 1 loss. The B-17/B-24 kill ratio was modified by a post war USAF analysis to account for over-claims experienced by those bombers, which were high due to formation flying and self reporting causing multiple claims on the same kill. B-29's had gun cameras and more solo encounters, so over claiming was nil. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSwB1MxaungThe B-29 kill ratio of 11.7 to 1 is insane. USAAF shot for the moon outfitting the B-29, they had a central fire control officer and five computers that calculated all elements of lead for the gunners, who were in remote sighting stations so they weren't affected by vibration and muzzle flash in the gun turrets. The computerized lead made the B-29 effective gunnery range more than twice that of Japanese interceptors. One gunner could control up to three turrets simultaneously, so attacking interceptors were running the gauntlet into a computer assisted, networked buzzsaw. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwNPJgNEyMUVideos the WWIIUSBombers channel, which is a dry but highly informative technical analysis channel on US bombers: https://www.youtube.com/@WWIIUSBombers/videos That is strange indeed. Most of what I have read indicates that the primary advantage of the gunnery systems in the bombers was to create distance and make the attacking pilots feel like they should not close to the most effective distance. There were even efforts to make the tracers brighter so that they would be more visible and hence more intimidating. There was also some argument that the weight of the gunners and guns may have been better spent on armor. Interesting indeed to hear this interpretation considering that after the war the idea of a bomber bristling with defensive guns was rapidly discarded by everyone building bombers. Only the tail turrets remained by the 1960s. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2023 1:49:46 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SemperGumbi: That is strange indeed. Most of what I have read indicates that the primary advantage of the gunnery systems in the bombers was to create distance and make the attacking pilots feel like they should not close to the most effective distance. There were even efforts to make the tracers brighter so that they would be more visible and hence more intimidating. There was also some argument that the weight of the gunners and guns may have been better spent on armor. Interesting indeed to hear this interpretation considering that after the war the idea of a bomber bristling with defensive guns was rapidly discarded by everyone building bombers. Only the tail turrets remained by the 1960s. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SemperGumbi: Originally Posted By Mal_means_bad: @Colt653 Very effective! It was dangerous as hell to attack a US bomber. From video below: The European theater B-17/B-24 kill ratio was 0.83 German fighters shot down for every 1 US bomber shot down. The Pacific B-29 kill ratio was 11.7 Japanese kills to 1 loss. The B-17/B-24 kill ratio was modified by a post war USAF analysis to account for over-claims experienced by those bombers, which were high due to formation flying and self reporting causing multiple claims on the same kill. B-29's had gun cameras and more solo encounters, so over claiming was nil. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSwB1MxaungThe B-29 kill ratio of 11.7 to 1 is insane. USAAF shot for the moon outfitting the B-29, they had a central fire control officer and five computers that calculated all elements of lead for the gunners, who were in remote sighting stations so they weren't affected by vibration and muzzle flash in the gun turrets. The computerized lead made the B-29 effective gunnery range more than twice that of Japanese interceptors. One gunner could control up to three turrets simultaneously, so attacking interceptors were running the gauntlet into a computer assisted, networked buzzsaw. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwNPJgNEyMUVideos the WWIIUSBombers channel, which is a dry but highly informative technical analysis channel on US bombers: https://www.youtube.com/@WWIIUSBombers/videos That is strange indeed. Most of what I have read indicates that the primary advantage of the gunnery systems in the bombers was to create distance and make the attacking pilots feel like they should not close to the most effective distance. There were even efforts to make the tracers brighter so that they would be more visible and hence more intimidating. There was also some argument that the weight of the gunners and guns may have been better spent on armor. Interesting indeed to hear this interpretation considering that after the war the idea of a bomber bristling with defensive guns was rapidly discarded by everyone building bombers. Only the tail turrets remained by the 1960s. Gunners with tracers had a tendency to ignore their gunsights and walk the tracers, but watching high deflection tracers in air-to-air combat caused an optical illusion that could cause them to misjudge the path of the bullets relative to the target. Gunsights evolved from spiderweb irons at the beginning of the war requiring a lot of experience and snap judgement, which probably justified tracers, to fixed reflectors and then rapidly improving computer generated deflection reflector sights on most guns, so that tracers became an unhelpful distraction. Also, German fighter pilots told interrogators they used bomber tracers to judge which parts of the formation were better defended.  Why WWII Bombers Eliminated Tracers in their Ammo Belt Mixes Early B-17 waist gunners, spider web and front post irons, ammo box label at bottom right indicates 2 armor piercing/2 incendiary/1 tracer  Attached FileLate war B-17/B-24 waist gun, Sperry K-13 compensating computer gyro sight. Gunner set the bomber's altitude and airspeed, turned a dial that changed the diameter of a projected circle so it matched the enemy plane's wingspan to provide range, and the gyro tracked the direction the gun was pointed. A very finely built mechanical computer used that data to calculate deflection up and down and side to side, and mirrors moved the projected reticle off of the gun's stationary zero to compensate. Walking tracers was much less effective, so they shot 100% API. The B-29 did the same thing but automated it, a lot like how battleships eliminated local, manual fire control of the main battery and made it centralized and computerized before WWI.  Attached File Attached File K 13 Gunsight Tutorial |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2023 8:17:39 PM EDT
[#23]
Is that B-17/B-24 kill ratio including bombers brought down by flak?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2023 10:32:42 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MMcfpd: Is that B-17/B-24 kill ratio including bombers brought down by flak? Flak kills were in a different column. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2023 6:47:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Mal_means_bad]
[#25]
B-17F Memphis Belle after 25th bombing mission on 19 May 1943 with kill claims for 8 German fighters. One kill tally mark under the port cheek gun
 Attached FileTwo kills port waist  Attached FileTwo kills starboard waist  Attached FileTwo kills on the "stinger" tail guns (named Pete and Repeat). External post and spiderweb irons mechanically linked to guns. If they're still zeroed you can see he's got a bunch of elevation cranked in for drop.  Attached FileMemphis Belle tail gunner John Quinlan holding the lucky horseshoe he carried on missions. Ironically a lucky horseshoe is traditionally pointed up, allowed to point down is supposed to 'spill the luck out' and cause bad luck.  Attached FileQuinlan was waiting in line for the recruiting station to open Monday morning, Dec 8th 1941. After the Memphis Belle bond tour he went back to war in the Pacific in a B-29. Shot down on Dec 7th 1944 over Manchuria and captured by the Japanese, he escaped and joined a Chinese guerilla band. The guerillas fought past several patrols, Quinlan himself fighting the Japanese with a rifle, to reach a landing strip for rescue. Credited 5 kills in B-17's and 3 in the B-29. Survived the war to return home and marry his sweetheart. I don't know which position claimed the other kill, top turret? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2023 7:01:01 PM EDT
[#26]
One of the changes coming from actual combat (in addition to the powered nose turrets of the later B-17 G & the B-24 H) was to offset the waist gunners positions.
Early B-24s & B-17s had the waist guns directly apart from each other in symmetry - something an engineer might think desirable - which in the heat of combat could cause contact & interference between the gunners while defending their aircraft & formations. Bigger_Hammer 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2023 9:19:37 PM EDT
[#27]
      
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2023 9:34:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Mal_means_bad]
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Colt653: The Air Force Museum didn't copy most of the kill marks for the restoration. In the 1944 documentary they weren't on the plane when it landed after the 25th mission, must have been added for the bond tour. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2023 11:37:35 PM EDT
[#29]
It's an amazing museum. I need to go back again |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2023 12:21:02 AM EDT
[#30]
Is Memphis Belle fully operational? I've read they used NOS engines but what about the rest of the plane? Are the .50 calibers live or dummies? I would guess dummies. Avionics? Fuel system? Radios?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2023 10:12:59 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By redleg13a: Is Memphis Belle fully operational? I've read they used NOS engines but what about the rest of the plane? Are the .50 calibers live or dummies? I would guess dummies. Avionics? Fuel system? Radios? Museum FAQ: "While most of the aircraft at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force have the potential to be made airworthy, our conservation and restoration work is directed at preserving the historical integrity and accuracy of an aircraft rather than achieving modern airworthiness. In preserving historical accuracy, we choose to use original parts that may be unserviceable or non-airworthy, rather than modern substitutes. The Memphis Belle, for example, will use wiring made to original wartime specification, which does not meet today's flight standards, rather than wiring used in modern aircraft. This is vital to our mission of preserving the record copies of these aircraft for future generations to come." They did have a flyby appearance of a formation of several P-51's and three flying B-17's, including one painted as Memphis Belle for the movie at the restoration exhibit opening in 2018.  Memphis Belle Flyover Tribute (NMUSAF)  B-17 Flyover at the National Museum of the United States Air Force  Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2023 3:14:05 PM EDT
[#32]
I'm glad the Belle is back to her former glory.
I used to visit her at Mud Island in Memphis with my grandfather, who ran a primary school for most of the war, and flew B29's off of Tinian late in the war. The Belle got pretty beat up when she was in Memphis. I'm glad she's moved on to a place where she is appreciated again. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2023 3:19:23 PM EDT
[#33]
  
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2023 3:26:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: SemperGumbi]
[#34]
Mal I am sure all those gunners earned their right to brag but post war examination of unit records has shown that over-claiming was massive on both sides. A quick search on Google brings up this from Wikipedia:
"After the Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission, the USAAF stated that they shot down 309 German fighters, broken-down as follows: gunners on the bombers claimed 288, Spitfire pilots claimed 7, and P-47 pilots claimed 14. Luftwaffe records show 40 aircraft lost. The United States overclaimed their victories by more than 650 percent. The Luftwaffe claimed that they shot down 101 bombers and 5 fighters shot down. USAAF records show that 60 B-17s and no fighters were lost but that between 58 and 95 bombers were damaged." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_and_overclaiming_of_aerial_victories_during_World_War_II |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2023 9:21:14 PM EDT
[#35]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2023 8:09:01 PM EDT
[#36]
 Why was the Greatest B-17 Gunner Erased From History? Interesting story ive never heard before. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2023 8:35:19 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Colt653: https://media.defense.gov/2006/Jun/01/2000554780/1200/1200/0/060517-F-1234S-021.JPG https://media.defense.gov/2006/Jun/01/2000554777/1200/1200/0/060517-F-1234S-022.JPG https://media.defense.gov/2018/May/01/2001910857/1200/1200/0/180310-F-IO108-008.JPG https://media.defense.gov/2018/May/01/2001910873/1200/1200/0/180310-F-IO108-007.JPG https://media.defense.gov/2018/May/01/2001910871/1200/1200/0/180310-F-IO108-005.JPG https://media.defense.gov/2018/May/14/2001917004/1200/1200/0/180514-F-IO108-005.JPG https://media.defense.gov/2018/May/14/2001917003/1200/1200/0/180514-F-IO108-004.JPG Are the spots on the paint a camo pattern? Never seen on on heavy bombers. Or is it just wear and repair? There was a thread on Sherman's a while ago showing them with a crude pattern I'd never seen as well |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2023 5:04:42 AM EDT
[#38]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2023 5:21:32 AM EDT
[#39]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2023 12:20:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Mal_means_bad]
[#40]
 Attached File Attached File Attached FileDawn bombing raid on a Dornier plant in Meulan, France  Attached FileB-17G Fortress The Thomper is under fighter attack and the tail gunner is returning fire, Oct 1944. Location unknown. Note right wing damage and trailing smoke. Shot down by flak on November 30, 1944 mission to Merseburg, Germany, 5 KIA.  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2023 8:11:38 AM EDT
[#41]
 A camouflage network over East-West Axis Street (now 17th June Street - Straße des 17. Juni) in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2023 5:02:51 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote History Attached File Attached FileCould have been propaganda more than anything, but from the air it was probably the most distinctive street in Berlin, very broad and passing through the wooded Tiergarten. It's a straight line pointed right at the adjacent government district, bombers could parallel it to pinpoint important buildings, including the old and new Chancellery and Reichstag, Luftwaffe and Gestapo HQ's. Blurring the street's location by increasing the tree cover with netting might make it harder to target those high value administration buildings. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2023 10:52:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Bigger_Hammer]
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Colt653: https://media.defense.gov/2006/Jun/01/2000554780/1200/1200/0/060517-F-1234S-021.JPG https://media.defense.gov/2006/Jun/01/2000554777/1200/1200/0/060517-F-1234S-022.JPG https://media.defense.gov/2018/May/01/2001910857/1200/1200/0/180310-F-IO108-008.JPG https://media.defense.gov/2018/May/01/2001910873/1200/1200/0/180310-F-IO108-007.JPG https://media.defense.gov/2018/May/01/2001910871/1200/1200/0/180310-F-IO108-005.JPG https://media.defense.gov/2018/May/14/2001917004/1200/1200/0/180514-F-IO108-005.JPG https://media.defense.gov/2018/May/14/2001917003/1200/1200/0/180514-F-IO108-004.JPG This will certainly rustle some B-17s Jimmies, but the First USAAF 8th Air Force Heavy Bomber to fly & survive the required 25 mission tour was NOT Memphis Bell the famous B-17. The first heavy bomber & crew to fly 25 approved missions was a B-24 D named "Hot Stuff". Hot Stuff ultimately flew 31 ETO missions. It reached it's 25 mission mark 3 and a half months BEFORE "Memphis Bell"  B-24 "Hot Stuff" - LINK B-24 "Hot Stuff" 2nd Link Unfortunately, "Hot Stuff" crashed in Iceland in bad weather while attempting to fly to the United States, killing most of her crew. She wase returning home to begin a Bond Tour, so the USAAF pretended "Hot Stuff" wasn't the first and instead "Memphis Bell" became famous as "the 'First' to Fly 25". Interesting side note is that "Hot Stuff" was carrying a Very Important V.I.P. - Lieutenant General Frank Maxwell Andrews who was named Supreme Commander ETO while Ike was running the Invasion of North Africa in "Operation Torch". Had "Hot Stuff" not crashed in Iceland in 1943, it might not have been Ike directing & deciding about the Normandy Invasion of France in June 1944. Andrews Air Force Base (Now Joint Base Andrews) was named for Lt. Gen Andrews. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Maxwell_Andrews Certainly a not much known about "Famous" aircraft of WWII. Bigger_Hammer
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2023 10:28:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: EMSflyer]
[#44]
The B-24 and the brave Airmen who crewed them should be more celebrated.
However, Boeing had a better PR team apparently and B-17 operations in England were easier for war correspondents to report on during the war. Also the B-24 didn't exactly endear itself to it's crews in the same way the B-17 did. More fatiguing to fly and more dangerous to operate. But the facts are that the B-24 was built in greater numbers, carried more bombs, had better range and inflicted more damage on the enemy than the B-17. A man had to have balls of steel to climb into any combat aircraft in WW2. But especially so when you had to climb into one day after day that you were worried would randomly explode due to fuel vapor build up. Or was difficult to ditch or bail out of in an emergency. Brave, brave men !!! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2023 11:55:14 AM EDT
[#45]
 The Bomber that was NOT Supposed to be Shot Down Interesting take on why the B17 was partly more popular than B24. Mainly about a press corps reporter but his death on a B24 seems to have spooked other reporters away from flying in them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2023 11:56:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Mal_means_bad]
[#46]
Originally Posted By Bigger_Hammer: This will certainly rustle some B-17s Jimmies, but the First USAAF 8th Air Force Heavy Bomber to fly & survive the required 25 mission tour was NOT Memphis Bell the famous B-17. The first heavy bomber & crew to fly 25 approved missions was a B-24 D named "Hot Stuff". Hot Stuff ultimately flew 31 ETO missions. It reached it's 25 mission mark 3 and a half months BEFORE "Memphis Bell" https://www.historynet.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/hotstuff-1024x818.jpg B-24 "Hot Stuff" - LINK B-24 "Hot Stuff" 2nd Link Unfortunately, "Hot Stuff" crashed in Iceland in bad weather while attempting to fly to the United States, killing most of her crew. She wase returning home to begin a Bond Tour, so the USAAF pretended "Hot Stuff" wasn't the first and instead "Memphis Bell" became famous as "the 'First' to Fly 25". Interesting side note is that "Hot Stuff" was carrying a Very Important V.I.P. - Lieutenant General Frank Maxwell Andrews who was named Supreme Commander ETO while Ike was running the Invasion of North Africa in "Operation Torch". Had "Hot Stuff" not crashed in Iceland in 1943, it might not have been Ike directing & deciding about the Normandy Invasion of France in June 1944. Andrews Air Force Base (Now Joint Base Andrews) was named for Lt. Gen Andrews. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Maxwell_Andrews Certainly a not much known about "Famous" aircraft of WWII. Bigger_Hammer The guns pinned tailgunner Sergeant George Eisel by his broken ankles, which prevented him from being thrown into the burning wreckage of the fuselage. The spreading fire detonated ammunition scattered around him, inflicting fragmentation injuries, and singed his eyebrows off. Eisel was barely saved from burning to death by a rainstorm that put out the fire, but the rain also soaked him and left him dying of hypothermia. Almost 24 hours after the crash a search team extracted him from the wreckage and he was flown to a US hospital, where he was medically retired and lived another 20 years. All the fabric tail control surfaces within a couple feet of the tail turret wreckage are burned off  Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached FileGeneral Andrews on the cover of Time, after appointment as commander of the Caribbean Defense Command  Attached FileTIME, 9/1/41 When most Army pilots still insisted on flying by the seats of their pants, and often died with their pants, forced down, Andy Andrews pioneered instrument flying. Deviltry and curiosity apparently had as much as scientific inquiry to do with his zest for flight in rain, storm, fog, guiding planes solely by their then rudimentary instrument boards. One soggy day he flew to Philadelphia for an Army-Navy game, got there to find no slits in the clouds he could coast through for a landing. His radio sender iced over, left no way to get a message to the ground. So he cruised over Philadelphia listening to broadcasts of the game, also to reports that he was lost. His comment when friends later urged him to give up flying: "I don't want to be one of those generals who die in bed." His nervy, bad-weather flights did more than give him a reputation for courage; they pioneered a flight technique which every military pilot must master today... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2023 5:59:57 AM EDT
[#47]
  16./JG53 pilot Gefreiter Alfred Michel made an unwilling guest of the US 90th Infantry Division when his Bf 109's engine failed after an unlucky .50 caliber hit from the ground on January 1st 1945 Gefreiter = PFC |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2023 6:01:14 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mal_means_bad: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/172926/tiergarten_camo_jpg-3050319.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/172926/tiergarten_net_berlin_jpg-3050329.JPG Could have been propaganda more than anything, but from the air it was probably the most distinctive street in Berlin, very broad and passing through the wooded Tiergarten. It's a straight line pointed right at the adjacent government district, bombers could parallel it to pinpoint important buildings, including the old and new Chancellery and Reichstag, Luftwaffe and Gestapo HQ's. Blurring the street's location by increasing the tree cover with netting might make it harder to target those high value administration buildings. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mal_means_bad: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/172926/tiergarten_camo_jpg-3050319.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/172926/tiergarten_net_berlin_jpg-3050329.JPG Could have been propaganda more than anything, but from the air it was probably the most distinctive street in Berlin, very broad and passing through the wooded Tiergarten. It's a straight line pointed right at the adjacent government district, bombers could parallel it to pinpoint important buildings, including the old and new Chancellery and Reichstag, Luftwaffe and Gestapo HQ's. Blurring the street's location by increasing the tree cover with netting might make it harder to target those high value administration buildings. Thanks. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2023 8:56:04 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 4xGM300m: https://i.imgur.com/kPNxant.jpg https://i.imgur.com/8vPF75r.jpg Gefreiter = PFC |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2023 6:36:21 PM EDT
[#50]
If you watched Godzilla Minus One you might have noticed a funny truck in the background at the kamikaze repair base, that was an Imperial Japanese Army Toyota GB truck used as an aircraft engine starter, based on a WWI British invention called a Hucks Starter. Had a PTO shaft on a boom over the cab that connected to a starter dog on the spinner hub. All IJA combat planes had them (also the Russians, who may have appreciated them because their climate made it so difficult to get engines started). They also had an inertia starter to be hand cranked by groundcrew when the truck wasn't handy. Japanese newsreel usually has pilots lined up near already running planes, the crew chief in the cockpit tweaking it and warming her up before the pilot climbs up
 Attached File Attached File Attached FileKi-84. Exactly like that old propeller toy with the pull string  Attached File Attached FileCarriers lack room for starter trucks and equipment was spotty on distant islands so Zeroes and other Japanese Navy planes didn't have a starter dog. They seem to have missed the trick of the Coffman shotgun starter that was developed in the mid-30's and Japanese battery and electrical tech wasn't as good as American. Bombers like the Val could afford the room and weight to have a bigger battery and on board electric starter, and I gather at least some Zeros had electric starters, but I don't know if all Zeros did. All could be started by hand crank; I assume that gets a lot harder the bigger the engine gets, so that may have been an unappreciated advantage of the relatively small Zero engine. |
|
|
|
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.
Attached File
Attached File
