User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/6/2023 11:55:11 PM EDT
[#1]
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).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2023 11:55:24 PM EDT
[#2]
Well....yea.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2023 11:55:39 PM EDT
[#3]
Many bombers that served in WW2 were designed in the mid 1930s right along with the B17. That is a lot closer to WW2 than WW1 isn’t it? But I kinda get what you are saying.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2023 11:56:55 PM EDT
[#4]
No1curr
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2023 11:57:05 PM EDT
[#5]
Was it a bomber?
Was it used in WWII? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2023 11:58:26 PM EDT
[#6]
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.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2023 11:58:41 PM EDT
[#7]
That depends on what your definition of the word is, is.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2023 11:58:45 PM EDT
[#8]
The Boeing 299 was developed in the mid-1930's, but the B-17 didn't go into operational status until 1939, by which time everybody with half a clue knew WW2 was going to happen. Hell, many people knew it was only a matter of time in the mid-30's.
My grandfather was a B-17 pilot in the 381st Bomb Group and his brother was a ball turret gunner in the 390th BG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:01:00 AM EDT
[#9]
WWII.25
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:02:28 AM EDT
[#10]
Correct. The first prototype of the B-17 flew in 1935, before anyone imagined Germany could overrun Europe.
Now the B-29, that was a proper WWII bomber. First flight was in 1942. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:03:26 AM EDT
[#11]
The Bf-109 first flight occurred several months before the B-17. Lots of aircraft that flew frontline combat in 1945 started flying in the mid-1930's. WWII has a reputation for planes being obsolete in a matter of months, but quite a few were around for a decade, though in substantially evolved versions from their origin.
(The last combat sorties of the Bf-109 and B-17 was Israeli Spanish license built Bf-109 copies escorting surplus US B-17's on a bombing mission in the the 1948 Arab-Israeli war) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:06:55 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). Boeing worked on a pressurized version on the B-17: Boeing Model 334 (1939)  Which then led to the Boeing Model 335 (May 11, 1940)  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:07:06 AM EDT
[#13]
How many iterations before the Spitfire matured?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:08:58 AM EDT
[#14]
Using that logic, the Garand was not a WWII rifle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:09:12 AM EDT
[#15]
Stuka pilots complained they were heavily harassed by Polish bi-planes after they dropped their bombs, losing altitude, and all their speed and energy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:10:54 AM EDT
[#16]
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). 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:13:18 AM EDT
[#17]
Would this be considered a WW .62 bomber because it was such a failure?
 The Barling Bomber (1923) How about this one because it predated the war by several years?  4K | World's Oldest Flying Aeroplane | Blériot XI ( 1909 ) at Sanicole 2017 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:14:50 AM EDT
[#18]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:15:05 AM EDT
[#19]
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. This: The Tu-4 Bull. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:16:23 AM EDT
[#20]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:18:22 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: Rather, it was a WW 1.5 bomber. If you have the mental capacity to follow, discuss. Under that logic, so was the F4 Phantom Mvm, 1953.... not 43. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:18:34 AM EDT
[#22]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:18:41 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Correct. The first prototype of the B-17 flew in 1935, before anyone imagined Germany could overrun Europe. Now the B-29, that was a proper WWII bomber. First flight was in 1942. This. We also started new ships before WW2. We fell behind in tanks though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:19:16 AM EDT
[#24]
This is as gay as if OP asked if he preferred circumcised cock over uncircumcised cock.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:20:12 AM EDT
[#25]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:20:30 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Rather, it was a WW 1.5 bomber. If you have the mental capacity to follow, discuss. It wasn’t really World War 1 and World War 2. It was really World War Part 1 and World War Part 2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:21:31 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LOL, which they also stole from the United States Andrei Tupelov reportedly said, "it's easier to develop 2 of your own aircraft than to copy one B-29." I suppose we will never know because they were ripping off the B-29 right up until the Tu-95. I think even the Tu-144 airliner fuselage used technologies derived from the B-29. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:21:34 AM EDT
[#28]
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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:22:50 AM EDT
[#29]
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. Is that the one they copied and the rudder pedals on the Russian ship said Boeing on them cause they made a cast from the ones they wound up with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:22:53 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Andrei Tupelov reportedly said, "it's easier to develop 2 of your own aircraft than to copy one B-29." I suppose we will never know because they were ripping off the B-29 right up until the Tu-95. I think even the Tu-144 airliner fuselage used technologies derived from the B-29. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: LOL, which they also stole from the United States Andrei Tupelov reportedly said, "it's easier to develop 2 of your own aircraft than to copy one B-29." I suppose we will never know because they were ripping off the B-29 right up until the Tu-95. I think even the Tu-144 airliner fuselage used technologies derived from the B-29. That is Russian propaganda!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:24:07 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is that the one they copied and the rudder pedals on the Russian ship said Boeing on them cause they made a cast from the ones they wound up with. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. Is that the one they copied and the rudder pedals on the Russian ship said Boeing on them cause they made a cast from the ones they wound up with. They could of at least made it say borscht. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:24:42 AM EDT
[#32]
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). 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:24:45 AM EDT
[#33]
That's why it was elegant and the B-24 looked like a fuggin dump truck
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:25:53 AM EDT
[#34]
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). Boeing submitted their plans for the B-29 to the Army Air Corps in May 1940. The Lend Lease Act was enacted in March 1941. The TU-4 the the Soviets first flew in 1949 was their reverse engineered B-29 copy that they made from B-29s that made emergency landings in Soviet territory after making bombing raids on Japan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:26:40 AM EDT
[#35]
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. Yeah, they spent all that money "developing" a COPY because Stalin, among others, insisted it be a literal COPY, so the Sovs had to spend un-Godly amounts of time, money, resources, and effort developing tooling and such to match the inches-feet-pounds-gallons measurements of everything down to the sheet metal thickness. Their tooling was in metric, and ours wasn't, and their designers spent shitloads of stress trying to get their metric plants to use the converted-from-imperial measurements lest the designers be purged for failing to carry out Stalin's expressed wishes. Hell, they had to get waivers from senior officials to use Soviet radial engines and crew parachutes because copying those would have been prohibitive and pointless. "with assistance from the US", yeah, more than 1 plane got interned so they had a larger sample size. It was a completely unauthorized copy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:35:01 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Was it a bomber? Was it used in WWII? Yeah, this. Of course it was a WW2 bomber, because it was widely used in WW2 as… a bomber. Was it an interwar design? Yeah. So? Most aircraft were. On all sides. Hell, the Spitfire and Mustang were also pre war designs. Even the ME262 had a first flight before the US entered the war. The B-29 might be the only exception. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:38:56 AM EDT
[#37]
By this logic I suppose the Grumman Hellcat was the only true American WW2 fighter?
First flight during the war and went out of production near the end? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:44:07 AM EDT
[#38]
My buddy says:
"So the B-36 was a WW2 bomber?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:45:46 AM EDT
[#39]
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 complexity of those metal tubes with engines is nothing short of fascinating considering what we can and can't do today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:46:28 AM EDT
[#40]
My grandfather was a bombardier and member of "The Lucky Bastard Club".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:50:20 AM EDT
[#41]
And...so?
Aircraft development between 1930 and 1950 was incredible. What has developed from 2003 and now? Not much in comparison. Now consider the B-52 is 71 years old and the CH-47 is 61 years old. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:50:23 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The complexity of those metal tubes with engines is nothing short of fascinating considering what we can and can't do today. 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 The complexity of those metal tubes with engines is nothing short of fascinating considering what we can and can't do today. I agree. I often stare of those faces wondering what they were thinking. From my research they went down in New Guinea. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:52:06 AM EDT
[#43]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:57:40 AM EDT
[#44]
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. 1943? While Germany was occupying large portions of their country and before they had interned B-29s to copy? Or are you talking about the Tu-95? They could have had a swept wing turboprop flying before the end of the war? You wouldn't happen to write novels under the pen name John Birmingham do you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:57:42 AM EDT
[#45]
So technically the B-21 Raider is a WWII bomber?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:58:37 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LOL, which they also stole from the United States Quoted: Andrei Tupelov reportedly said, "it's easier to develop 2 of your own aircraft than to copy one B-29." I suppose we will never know because they were ripping off the B-29 right up until the Tu-95. I think even the Tu-144 airliner fuselage used technologies derived from the B-29. More like "it's easier to develop 2 of your own CRAPPY aircraft than to copy one B-29." The B-29 was like finding an alien spacecraft to the Soviets. They had NOTHING like it and the technologies (pressurization, central fire control computerized guns, advanced turbosupercharger engines were all many years ahead of anything in the Soviet Union of that time. WWII Soviet Combat Aircraft were basically 'disposable' with a very limited life expectancy and the Soviets thought, well - we'll just replace it with another cheaply made mass produced one. Bigger_Hammer 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 12:59:39 AM EDT
[#47]
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. The Bear is a Tu-95. The design bureau, led by Andrei Tupolev, designed the Soviet Union's first intercontinental bomber, the 1949 Tu-85, a scaled-up version of the Tu-4, a Boeing B-29 Superfortress copy. The Tu-4 showed that piston engines were not powerful enough for such a large aircraft, and the AM-3 jet engines for the proposed T-4 intercontinental jet bomber used too much fuel to give the required range. Turboprop engines were more powerful than piston engines and gave better range than the turbojets available at the time, and gave a top speed between the two. Turboprops were also initially selected for the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress to meet its long range requirement. Tupolev proposed a turboprop installation and a Tu-95 design with this configuration was officially approved by the government on 11 July 1951. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:00:14 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My buddy says: "So the B-36 was a WW2 bomber?" Is it a new arfcom joke to say "My buddy says" before saying things? I keep seeing it and it's not just you I dont think. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:05:37 AM EDT
[#49]
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. No one should have been forced to suffer through Whitworth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2023 1:09:31 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This. We also started new ships before WW2. We fell behind in tanks though. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Correct. The first prototype of the B-17 flew in 1935, before anyone imagined Germany could overrun Europe. Now the B-29, that was a proper WWII bomber. First flight was in 1942. This. We also started new ships before WW2. We fell behind in tanks though. Most of the aircraft we used during the war were already in flight test before Pearl Harbor. IIRC only the A-26 went from concept to combat during the war, and it arrived too late to really matter. |
|
|
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.
