#621
|
|||
|
|||
Don,
I know I've heard of the low level B-25s, B-26s, A-20s, Beaufighters, etc, but this is the first I've heard of low-level B-17s! Doug |
#622
|
||||
|
||||
Talk about being a sitting duck, and at the same time, an AA gunner's dream. Big, slow, and low.
Thanks for another unknown gem Don! |
#623
|
||||
|
||||
Good to hear from you, Doug!
From what I read, while the skip bombing technique was adopted from the RAF and developed by the USAAF in Tampa with B-26s, but initially used in SWPA with B-17s. By the time of the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, the B-17s had been returned to the long-range bombing and reconnaissance roles (and would soon be replaced by B-24s) and the low-level commerce-destroying mission was taken over by B-25s and A-20s. Bart - As near as I can tell, the low level missions were not more dangerous for the B-17s than other missions. They installed extra forward-firing guns to suppress flak, and if there was fighter air cover, they seem to have had a pretty good survival rate. I am writing this off the top of my head based on previous reading, and when I track down actual statistics I may be proven wrong. Don |
#624
|
||||
|
||||
Thanks for the heads up Don. I can highly recommend the book Fortress Against the sun. It has some good info on the skip bombing missions. One of the last roles for the B-17 in the Pacific was as armed transports. The B-17s would fly in low to drop supplies while the waist gunners would put down suppressive fire.
I have that B-17 in RAF Coastal Command service book. It is an excellent reference.
__________________
If man could be crossed with the cat it would improve man, but it would deteriorate the cat. - Mark Twain |
#625
|
|||
|
|||
Hello all. Hope everyone is doing well during the pandemic crisis. I am just writing to maybe prod Mr.. Dell a bit and ask him to re-release some of his older models on Ecardmodels. There are still a few I would love to see available again...Stay safe and stay well...take care...
|
#626
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
In my opinion, low level flying, strafing, bombing was much more dangerous than high altitude bombing missions. However, statistics as usual can be interpreted differently . Basically, low level attacks by lumbering bombers was individual or small group of planes. So the casualty numbers would be lower even if each plane was shot down by AA. On the positive side, low altitude flight exposed the plane to very short time period to any AA guns. But on the flip side heavily defended sites that expected raids had enough guns to pose a threat. So usually planes that did go after well defended positions ( like the British Lancaster Dam Busters or Mosquitoes ) got shot to pieces quite often. As for high altitude bombing, Those were mass raids of hundreds of bombers. The Germans knew they were coming and had plenty of time to position guns and fighters. So it was like whales feasting on schools of fish. Plenty of opportunities and kills. So in shear numbers, high altitude formation bombing that had hundreds of planes involved in a single raid produced the most loses in total numbers. However, low altitude attacks per raid had a much higher percentage of loses probability. Lastly, WW2 produced a high casualty rate because most of the attacks were done on a massive scale and Military leaders like LeMay and Dowding cared more about the end results rather than saving crews ( or civilians being bombed ). Having said that, the best attack is a sneak attack when it is not expected. and that is my technical opinion. Isaac
__________________
My gallery [http://www.papermodelers.com/gallery...v-r-6&cat=500] Recent buildsMeteor F1, Meteor F8, Mig-Ye8, NA Sabre, A-4E Skyhawk,Mig-15 red, Mig-17 repaint |
#627
|
||||
|
||||
These are all good and valid points, Isaac. I think the key factor in this case was that the B-17s (and the other Allied bombers) were usually attacking Japanese ships, most often merchant ships, sailing singly or in small, poorly-escorted convoys, so that the factors involved in low-level attacks over heavily defended ground targets were missing. Furthermore, most of the anti-shipping attacks were made at night, preferably at early dawn or when there was a full moon when the target ship would be backlit against the glare on the water, which meant that attack by Japanese fighters was less likely.
I second John's comments about the value of Fortress Against the Sun, which is in my opinion the best single volume on the operations of B-17s in the Pacific Theater. I just browsed through all the accounts of skip-bombing actions and, while they didn't get away unscathed, few of the B-17 losses were from shipboard anti-aircraft fire. Don |
#628
|
||||
|
||||
On a tangential note(John did design great looking -24s) the low level attacks on the oil fields at Ploesti initially resulted in large losses, but the one story of the flight of -24s tracking a rail line into the area, and the armored train running up into the flight, they dropped the box car panels and exposed the AA guns but were promptly obliterated by the aircraft waist gunners
__________________
"Rock is Dead, Long Live Paper and Scissors" International Paper Model Convention Blog http://paperdakar.blogspot.com/ "The weak point of the modern car is the squidgy organic bit behind the wheel." Jeremy Clarkson, Top Gear's Race to Oslo |
#629
|
||||
|
||||
Rock55, I have been getting the files ready for the kits of B-17F Memphis Belle and B-17G Wee Willie. Is there any kit in particular that you are interested in?
__________________
If man could be crossed with the cat it would improve man, but it would deteriorate the cat. - Mark Twain |
#630
|
|||
|
|||
Hello. Thanks for responding. I am a total Fortress nut, so those are good choices. I am also interested in the other F model series you had offered previously. And looking through these pages I have seen some interest expressed in the B-24s, especially the Dragon and hiss Tail. I hope all is well with you and your family (and kitties)….stay safe and stay well...
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|