PDA

View Full Version : How did Heavies get to britain



jenikovtaw
06-20-2004, 06:08 PM
I know that fighters were transported by ship convoys from the states to Britain (many pictures available)

Yet, I havent seen many pictures of B17s hoisted up from the ships and such. Were they taken apart and transported by ships or did they somehow fly across, landing in Greenland or something?

http://www.theartofwarfare.net/ftp/graphics/sigs/EXT-jenikovtaw.jpg

jenikovtaw
06-20-2004, 06:08 PM
I know that fighters were transported by ship convoys from the states to Britain (many pictures available)

Yet, I havent seen many pictures of B17s hoisted up from the ships and such. Were they taken apart and transported by ships or did they somehow fly across, landing in Greenland or something?

http://www.theartofwarfare.net/ftp/graphics/sigs/EXT-jenikovtaw.jpg

_VR_ScorpionWorm
06-20-2004, 06:11 PM
I have read that they flew......seems like common sense. If they can reach Berlin and back, Im sure they had no problem going one way to Britain.

"Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary force:
You are about to embark upon a Great Crusade toward which we have strived these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking" - Gen. Dwight D. Eiseinhower-Supreme Allied Commander.

www.vultures-row.com (http://www.vultures-row.com)

Chuck_Older
06-20-2004, 06:14 PM
Greenland-Iceland-Great Britain? Seems logical to me.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

Sturmtrooper
06-20-2004, 06:14 PM
Yes,I think they flew to Greenland . Then they refueled and flew straight to Britain .

http://home.bellsouth.net/coDataImages/p/Groups/183/183586/pages/456377/untitled1.gif

Maj_Death
06-20-2004, 06:21 PM
Heavy bombers such as the B-17 and B-24 would just fly over. Some fighters went along too such as the P-38.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maj_Death here, Stab.I/JG1Death at HL

I build COOPs and DF maps. If you would like some of them you can get them atmy COOP page (http://www14.brinkster.com/triggerhappy770/default.htm)

I/JG1 Oesau is recruiting axis pilots who prefer to fly maximum realism. We accept both veterans and rookies. We fly in VEF2, VOW and may join other online wars in the future. Go to our forums at http://www.jg1-oesau.org/ for more details and to apply.
http://www.bestanimations.com/Humans/Skulls/Skull-06.gif

WTE_Galway
06-20-2004, 06:25 PM
if i rememeber correctly later in the war the delivery pilots were often female

Urdhuk
06-20-2004, 07:04 PM
Hello friends,

Bombers actually reached England following a ferry route that was established in 1942 in a plan coded OPERATION BOLERO.
According to this plan bombers and even fighters were to be ferried in a route that started in Presque Island (Maine), continued to Labrador in Canada, then moved to Greenlan, Iceland and ended up in Scotland.

SeaFireLIV
06-20-2004, 07:16 PM
I often wonder whether the Germans made ANY attempts to intercept these flights at all? Even as far as they were... Surely, they must have tried to think of ways to stop the escalation of allied bombers from an early stage....

SeaFireLIV...



http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/origianlP38a.jpg
P38 sucks? .... I don`t think so!

WTE_Galway
06-20-2004, 10:35 PM
interception seems unlikely given

- the low range of german fighter
- the fact that the Graf Zepplin carrier was nevr operational
- the low likelihood of German long range aircraft like the Condor doing anythng usesful against a B17

heywooood
06-20-2004, 11:07 PM
Women Air Service Pilots - WASP's in the latter part of the war...earlier in the conflict they were flown over by their crews.

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/3tbm_avenger.jpg
Goin'fishin'

T_O_A_D
06-20-2004, 11:15 PM
I take it you haven't heard of Glacier Girl a P-38 and several other aircraft losst on this northern route. http://209.161.100.81/history1.html
She has been recovered and restored. The rest are still burried very deep in ice.

Have you checked your Private Topics recently? (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=ugtpc&s=400102)
My TrackIR fix, Read the whole thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=49310655&m=15310285&p=1)
Commanding Officer of the 131st_VFW (http://www.geocities.com/vfw_131st/)
http://home.mchsi.com/~131st_vfw/T_O_A_D.jpg

ImpStarDuece
06-21-2004, 04:44 AM
Well the B-24 was cxalled the 'box that the B-17 came in' so i guess the just packed them one inside the other and flew them over http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

Flying Bullet Magnet... Catching Lead Since 2002

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

horseback
06-21-2004, 01:16 PM
I think the B-24 reference was just a slam on its looks...both aircraft had sufficient range to fly across to Blighty via Newfoundland, Iceland, Scotland and then southern England without undue stress.

It was the route MATS C-47s were still taking up into the mid-60s; my family rode on one back in '61 to Mildenhall from somewhere in New York when I was barely seven. It was winter, and the one memory that sticks with me was the snow in Iceland along the runway piled higher than the Gooney Bird we were in (hey, I was seven and three weeks before I'd been living in Arizona).

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Huxley_S
06-21-2004, 01:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>my family rode on one back in '61 to Mildenhall from somewhere in New York when I was barely seven. It was winter, and the one memory that sticks with me was the snow in Iceland along the runway piled higher than the Gooney Bird we were in (hey, I was seven and three weeks before I'd been living in Arizona).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you thinking about a horse?

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_huxli.jpg (http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap)

FB Music and Campaigns @
http://www.onemorewild.org/huxley

Chuck_Older
06-21-2004, 04:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huxley_S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>my family rode on one back in '61 to Mildenhall from somewhere in New York when I was barely seven. It was winter, and the one memory that sticks with me was the snow in Iceland along the runway piled higher than the Gooney Bird we were in (hey, I was seven and three weeks before I'd been living in Arizona).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you thinking about a horse?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seriously? I am unsure if you're joking.
Sounds to me like he is only slightly mistaken if at all- I am not sure if he flew in a C-47, could have been a DC-3, but the C-47 had many nicknames- Gooney Bird, Dakota, Sky Train, and others. The C-47 was in use during VietNam. It was the Li-2 in the USSR and I beleive the Showa L2D in Japan.

He could also be talking about a DC-3, which is the basic design the C-47 is drawn from. I beleive it was 1936 (?) that the US Army began using these civilian airliners, and if I recall correctly, the C-41 prototype of the C-47 was actually a re-engined DC-2, so the C-47 design is perhaps older than the DC-3, but I think that little is different between a DC-2 and a DC-3. It was the very early '40s, maybe even in 1940, that the US Army had a purchase order for C-47s. The C-47 was certainly in widespread active use in the US military in 1961.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

Gibbage1
06-21-2004, 04:49 PM
B-17's and B-24's also used ferry tanks in there bomb bay. They also carried very little ammo. Something like 10 round per gun.

The Germans DID intercept a ferry flight of B-17's and P-38's flying from Afrika to England. The P-38's had only 10 rounds per MG and no canon. 2 Ju-88's jumped the formation and shot down a few B-17's. 1 P-38 was able to shoot down 1 Ju-88, but the other got away. A confirmed kill of a Ju-88 with only 40 rounds of MG on the P-38. Ya. The .50 cal was weak. Very weak http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The pilot said he would of gone for the other Ju but he ran out. The other P-38 in the group was damaged. I cant remember.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Philipscdrw
06-21-2004, 04:58 PM
The progression was:

DC-1: First flying prototype, seats 12. It had a significant reserve of power so they put into production the...

DC-2: which was a extension of the DC-1 that seated 14 in 1+1 seating. Popular with the airlines, because it was better than the Boeing 247.

Douglas Sleeper Transport (DST): The DC-2 fuselage was widened to accomodate 14 bunks for night flights.

DC-3: Essentially the DST with 21 2+1 seats.

So the main difference between the Dc-2 and DC-3 is that the DC-3 has a widened fuselage for 2+1 seating while the DC-2 has the original 1+1 fuselage.

I think (guess!) the C-41 is converted or special-build DC-2s for the DoD, while the C-47 is based on the DC-3, possibly with a large cargo door, not seen in the DC-3?

I think the C-54 were converted airline DC-3s?

PhilipsCDRw

"Nietzsche is dead." - God.

View Cpt. Eric Brown's review of FB here (http://www.aerosociety.com/raes/news/SimReview.pdf) and discuss it here. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=309109534&r=875101634#875101634)

LStarosta
06-21-2004, 05:02 PM
" they can reach Berlin and back, Im sure they had no problem going one way to Britain."

Flawed argument. B17's had to refuel in Soviet-held airbases and then fly back.

Chuck_Older
06-21-2004, 05:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LStarosta:
" they can reach Berlin and back, Im sure they had no problem going one way to Britain."

Flawed argument. B17's had to refuel in Soviet-held airbases and then fly back.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What makes you say that?

To make a bombing raid on Berlin, it was not usual practice to fly on to the Soviet Union. Ferry flights such as this were rare, and I can think of three instances off the top of my head, At least two operations by the 4th, and another from a group in Italy. On a standard raid on Berlin, the B-17s would indeed turn around and fly to England, and not the way they came, either, they took a route that would not give away their flight path. The standard raid on Berlin did not include a refueling point in the USSR. The range of a B-17 with a full bombload is 2000 miles. I don't wonder that the bombs were not onboard during the trip to England from the USA http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

Chuck_Older
06-21-2004, 05:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
The progression was:

DC-1: First flying prototype, seats 12. It had a significant reserve of power so they put into production the...

DC-2: which was a extension of the DC-1 that seated 14 in 1+1 seating. Popular with the airlines, because it was better than the Boeing 247.

Douglas Sleeper Transport (DST): The DC-2 fuselage was widened to accomodate 14 bunks for night flights.

DC-3: Essentially the DST with 21 2+1 seats.

So the main difference between the Dc-2 and DC-3 is that the DC-3 has a widened fuselage for 2+1 seating while the DC-2 has the original 1+1 fuselage.

I think (guess!) the C-41 is converted or special-build DC-2s for the DoD, while the C-47 is based on the DC-3, possibly with a large cargo door, not seen in the DC-3?

I think the C-54 were converted airline DC-3s?

PhilipsCDRw

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know about the C-54, but thanks for the lineage of the C-47 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

Philipscdrw
06-21-2004, 05:39 PM
There was definitely a seperate C- code for the converted airline DC-3s. The C-47s were purpose built.

PhilipsCDRw

"Nietzsche is dead." - God.

View Cpt. Eric Brown's review of FB here (http://www.aerosociety.com/raes/news/SimReview.pdf) and discuss it here. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=309109534&r=875101634#875101634)

DaBallz
06-21-2004, 05:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
The progression was:

DC-1: First flying prototype, seats 12. It had a significant reserve of power so they put into production the...

DC-2: which was a extension of the DC-1 that seated 14 in 1+1 seating. Popular with the airlines, because it was better than the Boeing 247.

Douglas Sleeper Transport (DST): The DC-2 fuselage was widened to accomodate 14 bunks for night flights.

DC-3: Essentially the DST with 21 2+1 seats.

So the main difference between the Dc-2 and DC-3 is that the DC-3 has a widened fuselage for 2+1 seating while the DC-2 has the original 1+1 fuselage.

I think (guess!) the C-41 is converted or special-build DC-2s for the DoD, while the C-47 is based on the DC-3, possibly with a large cargo door, not seen in the DC-3?

I think the C-54 were converted airline DC-3s?

PhilipsCDRw

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know about the C-54, but thanks for the lineage of the C-47 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ok people, let's set the record straight.

the DC2 did in the Boeing 247 not because it
was a better plane (fer from it). It was a success
because it held more paying passengers. The DC3
was the last straw....or was it?

The Boeing model 299 was an 4 engined 247.
A few extra gadgets and turrets. But that's all!
Yup, a 247 is clearly the direct ancestor of
the B-17, Boeing model 299P is a B-17G.

The B-18 was the bomber version of the DC2.
It was a pig by all accounts. It was relegated
to secondary roles and anti submarine patrol
after Pearl Harbor.

The C-54/DC4 was an all new design based loosley
on the DC3. It had a tricycle landing gear and was
powered by four P&W R-2000's of 1350HP. The R-2000
was simply a bored out R-1830 and shared most internal
components.

The various models of the B-17 after the B-17E
could fly the round trip to Berlin with 5,000lbs
of bombs, it was done many times.

Some did indeed fly shuttle missions to to Russia
throw off the German defences, that was more or
less a failure.

A B-17G could indeed fly non stop from Maine to
Britian. No doubt about it. But there were
many risks. All aircraft of the era were unreliable
by today's standards. Primarily powerplant issues.

As an example of B-17 max range....
B-17's were regularly flown to Hawaii non stop
from Sanfransisco. But the guns and turrets
were shipped.

Also there was a big issue with bad weather and
nill forecasting. Think about the havoc a 30MPH
head wind can cause with a plane with a 220mph cruise
speed. Now lets try a 100mph head wind. Yes, head
winds can ruin your day!

Too much of a risk. The short hop shuttle missions
made more sense Since the non stop trip might
leave you nearly out of fuel if weather was perfect! (and engine failure did not kill you).

By the way, before you guys jump on the 100mph
head winds claim, there are many stories about
bombers geting caught in winds aloft making
no head way at all (zero ground speed) and being
forced to abort missions.
This was common over Japan where there are a few
stories where B-29s running full WEP could not
make any head way with 350mph TAS.

BTW, the only reason why P-51s and P-47s were shipped
was the single engine... They had range to make the
shuttle, I have read where some did, but I'm sorry
I can not give a reference.

Da...

[This message was edited by DaBallz on Mon June 21 2004 at 05:11 PM.]

Zyzbot
06-21-2004, 06:26 PM
The Ferrying Command:


http://www.bolling.af.mil/orgs/Wing/HS/heritage/ferry.htm

Chuck_Older
06-21-2004, 07:11 PM
Good post, Da.

But I am confused about why you quoted my post in which I quoted PhilipsCDRw, because we weren't really spreading disinformation about why the DC-2 and DC-3 did or didn't do anything in spite of opposition from competeing (military and civilian) designs from Boeing...it was about the evolution of the C-47 design. Not much about anything else...in fact the quote has nothing to do with the B-18 or B-17, which makes me think you quoted the wrong post, maybe? Especially since you editted it.

In any case, you basically said the same I did in regards to B-17s making round trip flights to the Big B and then home, so that confused me, too.


But I also remembered the names of the two ferry Operations the 4th ran that I was thinking of: Frantic I and II http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I still have a memory, it seems http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

horseback
06-21-2004, 08:13 PM
I seem to have stirred something up here with my reference to my family's flight to England. The aircraft had two engines, and my father has always referred to it as a Gooney Bird or C-47. I can't imagine him being mistaken about this; he retired after 20 years as a Master Sergeant, all as an air traffic controller.

Other than the two engines and the sight of all that snow in Iceland, the only thing that stands out about that flight was my little brother barfing all over the inflight meals tray right after the attendant had passed me my pancakes (which is why Dad brings the flight up every so often; little Billy puked right into the only cups of coffee provided for the passengers & he had to deal with not only three small kids on a long flight without caffeine, but with a woman who had to remind him every 15 minutes that she'd wanted to fix a Thermos of coffee for the flight, but "...no, the crew will handle everything for us.").

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

WTE_Galway
06-21-2004, 08:19 PM
the australians apparently had a famous DC "two and a half" at Moresby

apparently the story is a DC3 with a damaged wing was repaired by putting a pair of DC2 wings off a wreck onto it

DaBallz
06-22-2004, 02:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
the australians apparently had a famous DC "two and a half" at Moresby

apparently the story is a DC3 with a damaged wing was repaired by putting a pair of DC2 wings off a wreck onto it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The story about the DC2.5 is true. it must have flown
kind of weird. Two battle damaged wreks were
combined to make a flyable airplane. a wing
off a DC2 was attached to a DC3.

By the way, I didnot edit anyones posts in my quotes.
Perhaps I did not quote you?...

My comments about the Boeing 247 and Douglas DC2
were intended to illustrate the difference between
a good flying machine and a good money maker.
A DC2 or DC3 would make an airline money.
But the Boeing 247 was an excellent flying machine
perhaps the best to date.

There was however an airliner based on the model 299.
The Boeing Model 307 was an unatractive but
excellent airliner. Like the DC5 (ever heard of a DC5?)
the 307 was doomed by WWII. One survives in
the Smithstonian, it is fully restored and
was airworthy untill an unfortunate crash
a couple of years ago. It has been restored
100% but it was decided not to fly it again.
Boeing 307s use B-17 wings and engines.
The wings are an exact match, so much so that
after 4 years of USAAF use during WWII all
surviving 307s were fitted with factory new
B-17G wings and engines! Effectivly those
planes were returned with zero airframe hours.

A note about the Boeing 307 vs the DC3.
The Boeing 307 was pressurized and carried
twice the passengers of a DC3. DC3s and
early DC4s were un pressurized. WWII may have
saved Douglas, the 307 was head and shoulders
ahead of the DC series.
Oh yes, the B307 was over 50 mph faster at
cruise speed.

As can be seen in the photo, the 307s B-17
ancestry is obvious.

Da...
http://www.aviation-history.com/boeing/307-2b.jpg

Skarphol
06-22-2004, 05:38 AM
Here is a slight overview of the military versions of the DC-2/DC-3/DC-4 series, according to joe Baugher:

Douglas C-32: Original XC-32 was a military version of the DC-2 commercial airliner. Differed from the the commercial airliner only in minor details and in being powered by 750 hp Wright R-1820-12 radials. Only one built. Designation C-32A given to 24 DC-2 commercial airliners acquired by the Army in 1942 from civilian sources (including 5 aircraft previously acquired by the British Purchasing Commission).

Douglas C-33: Military cargo version of DC-2 series. Enlarged vertical tail, reinforced cabin floor, large cargo door. 18 built.

Douglas C-34: Military version of DC-2 commercial airliner. Similar to XC-32 except for minor revisions in interior arrangements. Two built.

Douglas C-38: Military version of DC-2 twin-engine commercial airliner. Had DC-3 outer wing "married" to a DC-2 fuse****e and center section. Prototype of the series of aircraft sometimes known as "DC 2 1/2". One built.

Douglas C-39: Twin-engine military transport. Production version of C-38 aerodynamic Prototype. Had DC-3 outer wing "married" to a DC-2 fuselage and center section. Two 795 hp Wright R-1820-55 Cyclone radials. Used primarily as cargo transport. 35 built.

Douglas C-41: C-41 was a "one-off" version of C-39 intended as staff transport for Chief of Staff of Army Air Corps. Two 1200 hp P&W R-1830-21 radials. Generally similar to C-39. One built. C-41A was military version of DC-3A reequipped with military instruments and communication equipment. Two 1200 hp P&W R-1830-21 radials. Served as staff transport. One built.

Douglas C-42: Staff transport for use by Commanding General of the Air Force GHQ. Similar to C-41 but powered by two 1000 hp. Wright R-1820-21 radials. One built.

Douglas C-47 Skytrain: Redesign of civilian DC-3 twin-engine commercial airliner for role of military cargo transport. Most widely used military transport in World War 2. Used by RAF as Dakota, by U. S. Navy as R4D.

Douglas C-48: Designation given to 36 DC-3As taken over from the airlines and used by the Army as personnel transports.

Douglas C-49: Designation given to 138 DC-3s taken over from the airlines and used by the Army as personnel transports.

Douglas C-50: Designation given to 14 DC-3s taken over from airline orders and used by the Army as personnel transports.

Douglas C-51: Designation given to a single DC-3 taken over from airline order and used by the Army as paratroop transport.

Douglas C-52: Designation given to 6 DC-3s taken over on the production lines before delivery and fitted as paratroop transports

Douglas C-53 Skytrooper: Paratroop transport version of C-47. Fixed metal seats, no large cargo door, no reinforced floor, no astrodome.

Douglas C-54 Skymaster: Military version of DC-4 four-engine commercial transport. Both cargo and troop transport versions built. Navy version was R5D. Total of 1084 built.

Douglas C-68: Designation given to two DC-3A twin-engine commercial airliners taken over from the airlines and used by Army as personnel transports. Two P&W R-1830-92 radials.

So I guess WWII really made it for Douglas...

Skarphol

"Trying is the first step towards failure!" Homer Simpson

DaBallz
06-22-2004, 05:18 PM
You missed the R3D, the US NAVY designation
for the DC5

Douglas combat planes...


------------------------------------------------

Douglas A-20 Havoc
Douglas A-24
Douglas A-26 Invader
Douglas A-33
Douglas AD-1 Skyraider
Douglas B-18
Douglas B-23 Dragon
Douglas BTD Destroyer
Douglas F-3 (Another A-20 varient, photo recon version)
Douglas P-70 (night fighter version of A-20)
Douglas SBD Dauntless
Douglas TBD Devastator
Douglas XB-19A
Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster
Douglas XB-43 Jetmaster

The B-18 and B-23 were based on the DC2 and DC3.
Both were failures, but both saw service in
secondary roles.

The B-19 was the worlds largest aircraft until
the B-36 was completed. Though a failure this was
because of the lack of adequately powerful engines.
The B-19A was used as a transport and scrapped
after the war.

Da...

NorrisMcWhirter
06-22-2004, 05:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
B-17's and B-24's also used ferry tanks in there bomb bay. They also carried very little ammo. Something like 10 round per gun.

The Germans DID intercept a ferry flight of B-17's and P-38's flying from Afrika to England. The P-38's had only 10 rounds per MG and no canon. 2 Ju-88's jumped the formation and shot down a few B-17's. 1 P-38 was able to shoot down 1 Ju-88, but the other got away. A confirmed kill of a Ju-88 with only 40 rounds of MG on the P-38. Ya. The .50 cal was weak. Very weak http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The pilot said he would of gone for the other Ju but he ran out. The other P-38 in the group was damaged. I cant remember.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, let me get this straight...a "few" B-17s (allegedly a "tough" bomber) were shot down by 2 JU88's ? Carrying what armament ? (I've been down the pub so cannot be arsed to look it up myself). Sounds like the Germans did well against these "indestructable" "uber" birds, if you ask me.

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

Zyzbot
06-22-2004, 06:05 PM
Probably one of the night fighter or intruder varients armed with 20mm cannons.


for example:

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/airforce/a/aerialgunners.htm

Baltar
06-22-2004, 06:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
B-17's and B-24's also used ferry tanks in there bomb bay. They also carried very little ammo. Something like 10 round per gun.

The Germans DID intercept a ferry flight of B-17's and P-38's flying from Afrika to England. The P-38's had only 10 rounds per MG and no canon. 2 Ju-88's jumped the formation and shot down a few B-17's. 1 P-38 was able to shoot down 1 Ju-88, but the other got away. A confirmed kill of a Ju-88 with only 40 rounds of MG on the P-38. Ya. The .50 cal was weak. Very weak http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The pilot said he would of gone for the other Ju but he ran out. The other P-38 in the group was damaged. I cant remember.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, let me get this straight...a "few" B-17s (allegedly a "tough" bomber) were shot down by 2 JU88's ? Carrying what armament ? (I've been down the pub so cannot be arsed to look it up myself). Sounds like the Germans did well against these "indestructable" "uber" birds, if you ask me.

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
http://www.chavscum.co.uk
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I regret to inform you that you sound like a complete moron.

horseback
06-22-2004, 07:06 PM
Norris-

You just can't help yourself, can you? The B-17s in question were unarmed or lightly armed for ferrying purposes (all those MGs and ammo weigh a bit, you know), and I believe the escorting P-38s had less than 50 rounds each for only two of their .50 cal MGs (again, weight restrictions to maximize range).

The Ju 88s in question were likely the C-6 or later Zerstorer heavy fighter versions, which featured no less than three (3) 20mm MG/FF cannon and three 7.9mm MG-17s fixed in the nose, with most having 13mm or twin 7.9mm flexible mounts in the rear upper and lower positions.

These models of the Ju 88 were built from the ground up as fighters, with the correspondingly stronger engines, structural strength and armor protection. A lightly defended B-17 would be easy meat for these, caught at medium altitude and the most fuel-efficient cruising speed. Throw in the extra fuel in the ferrying tanks carried in the bomb bay, and you have all the ingredients for a loud bang and a flash of light, followed by a short heavy rain of aluminum (or aluminium, if you prefer) over the North Atlantic.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

eng4360
03-30-2006, 09:17 PM
While in the USAF in 1965 our crew was transported from Vandenberg AFB, California to Elsworth AFB, South Dakota. I remember we had to stop for fuel near Salt Lake City. When we took off we had to circle for almost an hour to get high enough to get over the Washach mountains. I had a tough time breathing, and didn't even try to light a cigarette.

Nimits
03-30-2006, 10:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
" they can reach Berlin and back, Im sure they had no problem going one way to Britain."

Flawed argument. B17's had to refuel in Soviet-held airbases and then fly back. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was for hitting targets in Eastern Europe. B-17s and B-24 flew several round trip missions to Berlin.

Zeus-cat
03-30-2006, 10:33 PM
As has been stated, the B-17s flew to Newfoundland, Iceland, Scotland and then southern England. There are plans to fly the Liberty Belle (a restored B-17 I flew in last year) to England via the same route in the near future. Apparently, the owner is looking for sponsors to pay for the fuel and other expenses to fly her there.

DxyFlyr
03-30-2006, 11:33 PM
There was also a southern route. I recall reading that Jimmy Stewart ferried his B-24 and crew through South America to Morocco and then on up to England.

This was a pretty good book, btw. Could have been more detailed, but made for a fun read.
Jimmy Stewart Bomber Pilot (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/076032199X/sr=8-1/qid=1143786951/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-8546622-7091833?%5Fencoding=UTF8)

PBNA-Boosher
03-31-2006, 05:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
if i rememeber correctly later in the war the delivery pilots were often female </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, they were part of the American WASP program, but that wasn't initially. Initially the bombers went with their assigned pilots and crews for the war. As soon as the WASP program started, women were flying replacements overseas.

LStarosta
03-31-2006, 10:23 AM
http://www.howardhallis.com/drstrange/tradingcards/overpower/necromancy.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

AWL_Spinner
03-31-2006, 10:33 AM
You should read "Fate Is The Hunter" by Ernest K Gann. Lots of excellent stuff about ferrying over the Atlantic and some great writing about the era of the DC-2.

HayateAce
03-31-2006, 11:06 AM
Ah, don't mind Chip McSquirter.....the chip on his shoulder is permanent.

jarink
03-31-2006, 12:46 PM
A few notes about B-17s, range and ferry flights...

B-17s (and B-24s) made flights straight from Newfoundland to England pretty much the entire war. I've talked to quite a few B-17 crew that can attest to this personally. For the ferry flights, they flew with minimal ammo, usually only for a couple of positions (tail, ball and ventral turrets) and bomb-bay fuel tanks. The greatest danger was from weather, especially wind, which could throw them far off course.

Shuttle missions did (slightly) increase the penetration range while allowing additional bombload. However, the main reason for shuttle missions was <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">to throw off the Luftwaffe response on the return trip</span>. The LW would usually mass Gruppen along the bomber's likely return route for mass attack. A ferry mission would mean that the fighters were concentrated 180? from the bomber's actual course. Ferry missions were flown to N. Africa also.

telsono
03-31-2006, 01:09 PM
The Ju88's that would most probably made that intercept were the C6's that belonged to KG 40 that operated over the Bay of Biscay. Here's a good read on them.

"Bloody Biscay: The Air War over the Bay of Biscay During World War II"
by Chris Goss, Chris Gross

Jimmy Doolittle's transport to North Africa for Operation Torch was a B-17F. His aircraft suffered some technical problems and flew by itself from England to Gibraltar later then the rest of Eisenhower's command. Doolittle was a passenger in the aircraft. Three KG 40 Ju 88's attacked them, one leaking fuel. They had no waist gunners in the B-17 as it was being used as a personnel transport, but the tail top and dorsal turrets was manned. The co-pilot was injured from one of the attacks and Dolittle manned the second seat while the pilot applied evasive manuevers to escape the Zerstorers. The Ju 88's must have ran out of ammo as they ended the fight and left the area.
These Zerstorers were used to escort U-boats, attack Coastal Command anti-shipping aircraft as well as conduct anti-shipping attacks of their own.
KG 40 flew a variety of aircraft, most famous was the FW 200 Condors, but they also had He-111's, Do-217's, He-177's and the Ju-88.

luftluuver
03-31-2006, 04:00 PM
Someone mentioned bomber routes for bombing Germany:

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/303bg-routes1.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/303bg-routes2.jpg