OldArmy71 said:
Yes, they did, but the losses were so terrible that they didn't try it again.
They waited until they had fighters capable of escorting the bombers.
I just finished the book on Audible. It was fantastic. It really does a good job of breaking down all the moving parts to the European theater. So many things built on one another - and there were a lot of failed experiments on the path to finally overwhelming the Germans.DG-Ag said:
As an aside...I'm listening to the book on Audible (haven't started watching yet) and in the early chapters they talk a lot about Curtis LeMay. They mention that the character in Dr. Strangelove, Col. Jack D. Ripper, was patterned loosely after LeMay. That piqued my interest so I watched Dr. Strangelove again last night. What a great movie that was (or at least to me). Numerous laugh-out-loud moments.
Apologize for the derail.
Hey Nav said:
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/schweinfurt-regensburg-raid-august-17-1943
Good summary of the mission. 3rd Air Division Commander, Colonel Curtis LeMay, was in the lead plane.
Hey Nav said:
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/schweinfurt-regensburg-raid-august-17-1943
Good summary of the mission. 3rd Air Division Commander, Colonel Curtis LeMay, was in the lead plane.
Not a historian, so I cant speak for certain. I think there were a mix of factors. If i recall, many of the Liberators were in different theaters, Pacific and Africa, and not so much out of England (though there were some ). I think the availability of press and photogs was more prevalent in England comparatively for obvious reasons. So I think the American public seeing so many photos of damaged b-17s returning from bombing missions, and less so from similar missions out of africa and italy, I think you see how the "focus" would be more on the FF compared to the Liberator.Cinco Ranch Aggie said:
I find it interesting how the marketing (not sure if that is the right term, maybe propaganda?) of the time was so focused on certain aircraft, the B-17 being one (P-51 is the other I'm thinking of). I wonder why the Flying Fortress was the "pretty girl" of WWII US bombers when more B-24s were produced and the Liberator had arguably better "statistics" (range, altitude, bomb load, etc). Was it simply because the FF came first? Or was it because the B-17 was a stylistically better looking aircraft than the Liberator, which might be described as a box with wings due to the fuselage shape?
Cinco Ranch Aggie said:
I find it interesting how the marketing (not sure if that is the right term, maybe propaganda?) of the time was so focused on certain aircraft, the B-17 being one (P-51 is the other I'm thinking of). I wonder why the Flying Fortress was the "pretty girl" of WWII US bombers when more B-24s were produced and the Liberator had arguably better "statistics" (range, altitude, bomb load, etc). Was it simply because the FF came first? Or was it because the B-17 was a stylistically better looking aircraft than the Liberator, which might be described as a box with wings due to the fuselage shape?
Thanks. I do like Hummingbird's answer. But I'll ask on that history board thread.Stive said:Cinco Ranch Aggie said:
I find it interesting how the marketing (not sure if that is the right term, maybe propaganda?) of the time was so focused on certain aircraft, the B-17 being one (P-51 is the other I'm thinking of). I wonder why the Flying Fortress was the "pretty girl" of WWII US bombers when more B-24s were produced and the Liberator had arguably better "statistics" (range, altitude, bomb load, etc). Was it simply because the FF came first? Or was it because the B-17 was a stylistically better looking aircraft than the Liberator, which might be described as a box with wings due to the fuselage shape?
This would be a really good question to ask on the Masters of the Air History Board thread. The air junkies over there could probably answer it pretty quickly.
Kinda surprising based on Army data (albeit from later in the war).AgsMnn said:CyanideJenkins said:
Y'all say whatever the **** you want about character development and storylines....
I'll just be over here trying to still wrap my mind around the idea of being a Ball Gunner on one of them things. Holy hell!
Almost suicidal if you were one.
That tracks with what I read in "It Wasn't So Jolly" by Tom Baker about the 90th Bomb Group (the Jolly Rogers) in the Pacific. The B-17 was proven and pretty, while the B-24 was ugly and an unknown; bomb crews were a little apprehensive about using the B-24.HummingbirdSaltalamacchia said:Not a historian, so I cant speak for certain. I think there were a mix of factors. If i recall, many of the Liberators were in different theaters, Pacific and Africa, and not so much out of England (though there were some ). I think the availability of press and photogs was more prevalent in England comparatively for obvious reasons. So I think the American public seeing so many photos of damaged b-17s returning from bombing missions, and less so from similar missions out of africa and italy, I think you see how the "focus" would be more on the FF compared to the Liberator.Cinco Ranch Aggie said:
I find it interesting how the marketing (not sure if that is the right term, maybe propaganda?) of the time was so focused on certain aircraft, the B-17 being one (P-51 is the other I'm thinking of). I wonder why the Flying Fortress was the "pretty girl" of WWII US bombers when more B-24s were produced and the Liberator had arguably better "statistics" (range, altitude, bomb load, etc). Was it simply because the FF came first? Or was it because the B-17 was a stylistically better looking aircraft than the Liberator, which might be described as a box with wings due to the fuselage shape?
Also, I believe the b24 was tasked with a lot of low level bombing missions, which lead to more casualties and bombers not returning. More returning bombers/crews = more people to talk to the press/authors during and after the war. i looked at wikipedia for a minute, and there is a comment about how aircrews "preferred" the b17 while the brass preferred the b24 for the reasons you listed. Not sure where that came from and how true that sentiment was.
supposedly there was a Mel Gibson helmed film about the USS LAFFEY at the end of the war under developmentCinco Ranch Aggie said:
Band of Brothers aired in 2001.
The Pacific aired in 2010.
MotA airs in 2023/24?
So I suppose we should expect a series focused on a US Navy destroyer (hypothetical) around 2040/41? The timing could be gold given it's roughly the 100th anniversary of Pearl Harbor.
Come on, spill the beans! When will that one debut?????? Gotta plan my viewing around it.
I think if they were to make a Navy limited TV series, I'd do the USS Enterprise (although this would be so tough between the absolute size of the carrier and also having to do both naval and aerial combat via CGI), or the USS San Francisco. Both ships saw tons of action in the Pacific. Could do the USS Johnston. She saw several big actions before being part of the The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors where several destroyers and destroyer escorts charged the entire Japanese Fleet to buy time for the carriers they were protecting.LMCane said:supposedly there was a Mel Gibson helmed film about the USS LAFFEY at the end of the war under developmentCinco Ranch Aggie said:
Band of Brothers aired in 2001.
The Pacific aired in 2010.
MotA airs in 2023/24?
So I suppose we should expect a series focused on a US Navy destroyer (hypothetical) around 2040/41? The timing could be gold given it's roughly the 100th anniversary of Pearl Harbor.
Come on, spill the beans! When will that one debut?????? Gotta plan my viewing around it.
Sure, battleship Texas would be an entire movie of transport escort and shore bombardments. Good movie - blah.wangus12 said:I think if they were to make a Navy limited TV series, I'd do the USS Enterprise (although this would be so tough between the absolute size of the carrier and also having to do both naval and aerial combat via CGI), or the USS San Francisco. Both ships saw tons of action in the Pacific. Could do the USS Johnston. She saw several big actions before being part of the The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors where several destroyers and destroyer escorts charged the entire Japanese Fleet to buy time for the carriers they were protecting.LMCane said:supposedly there was a Mel Gibson helmed film about the USS LAFFEY at the end of the war under developmentCinco Ranch Aggie said:
Band of Brothers aired in 2001.
The Pacific aired in 2010.
MotA airs in 2023/24?
So I suppose we should expect a series focused on a US Navy destroyer (hypothetical) around 2040/41? The timing could be gold given it's roughly the 100th anniversary of Pearl Harbor.
Come on, spill the beans! When will that one debut?????? Gotta plan my viewing around it.
Read this book if you get the chance
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Stand-Tin-Sailors-Extraordinary/dp/0553381482
Could also do Battleship Texas since she saw action in the Atlantic, Mediterranean and Pacific.
Sign me up for that.AggieOO said:
Indianapolis could be very interesting, but it'd be a completely different kind of series.
