Author Topic: B24? (Read 959 times)

Furball · « **Reply #15 on:** February 21, 2004, 12:20:58 PM »

B-29 had too many probs with bombing accuracy and other teething probs i thought? Mossie would win hands down imo, Mosquito's did not have any real problems with being intercepted until the luftwaffe introduced the 262, not to mention it is possibly the most versatile aircraft of WWII.

An example of the accuracy achieved by Mosquitos can be shown by comparing figures for the attacks on the V-weapons sites. The average tonnage of bombs required to destroy one of these sites by B-17 Flying Fortresses was 165; for B26 Marauders it was 182 tons and for B25 Mitchells 219 tons. The average for the Mosquito was just under 40 tons.

The BXVI could fly at up to 40,000 feet and carry a 4k bomb all the way to berlin.

As Galland put it: "The DeHavilland Mosquito - a plague to our command and population"

bj229r · « **Reply #16 on:** February 21, 2004, 12:57:59 PM »

Problems with B29 accuracy werent all the fault of the plane--inCREDibly high winds in pacific made hi-alt drops, useless

2Slow · « **Reply #17 on:** February 21, 2004, 04:36:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bj229r
Problems with B29 accuracy werent all the fault of the plane--inCREDibly high winds in pacific made hi-alt drops, useless

In fact, the unknown (undiscoverd by the west) jet stream over Tokyo made high alt impossible, with any accuracy.

Shiva · « **Reply #18 on:** February 21, 2004, 07:56:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rafe35
Many people in the 1930s were impressed that the Boeing create B-17 which Reporter call it "Flying Fortress" and the name stuck. Now, I dont remember much of the B-17 past, but they were later famous before B-24 came around and still I dont know why.

It was called the 'Flying Fortress' because it was originally intended to defend America's coastlines, the way a coastal fortress would. The name was later supposed to have been for the number of guns defending the plane, but that wasn't where it originally came from.

The B-17 got its fame through a number of publicity flights that highlighted its speed, range, and altitude capabilities before it got weighted down with all the guns and bombs, including redesigns that eliminated the teardrop waist bulges and added a tail gun position.

Rasker · « **Reply #19 on:** February 22, 2004, 01:24:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by 2Slow
In fact, the unknown (undiscoverd by the west) jet stream over Tokyo made high alt impossible, with any accuracy.

Somewhat for accuracy, but also that the huge headwinds gave the planes very low groundspeeds, keeping them in the ack around the target much longer. Also the stress of climbing to high altitude with full fuel took a major toll on the engines. Lastly, the more advanced Japanese daylight interceptors began taking a respectable toll even at high altitude (comparable to what the B-29's would have received over Germany, minus jets and rocket planes)

2Slow · « **Reply #20 on:** February 23, 2004, 06:29:50 PM »

The jet stream really screwed with the Norton Bomb Sight.

Indicated air speed and ground speed were outside of its parameters.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #21 on:** February 23, 2004, 06:38:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by United
Im reading something by Ambrose, Im not sure what the title is, but its about the B24 crews over Europe. The Wild Blue sounds right, but Id have to check to make sure. So far it is a pretty good book.

While I like most of Ambrose's stuff, Wild Blue was his worst effort by far. It felt like he mailed that one in.

Much of the information is taken directly from a wonderful book called "Wings of Morning" by Thomas Childers, where he tracked down the story of his uncle who was killed in 24s. A much more interesting and worthwhile book then Wild Blue. Much more moving as well.

Dan/Slack

Guppy35 · « **Reply #22 on:** February 23, 2004, 06:41:53 PM »

Gotta love these arguments.

Seems to me it took all the Allied bombers to do the job.

As for American 4 engined stuff, the 17 was the most photogenic. The B24 as the joke went among the crews, was the box the B17 came in. But the 24 did the job faster, with longer range and with a bigger payload in more places then the 17.

I like em both

Dan/Slack

bj229r · « **Reply #23 on:** February 23, 2004, 07:50:05 PM »

b17 could fly at 30k (dont think they ever DID)....b24 tops was 25k

Dowding · « **Reply #24 on:** February 24, 2004, 09:36:40 AM »

Mosquito was the best bomber of WW2. My favourite twin engined aircraft.

Sakai · « **Reply #25 on:** February 25, 2004, 02:58:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 2Slow
Wow, look at what I started. I just want a B24 in AH.

Me too. I want to see boxes of flying s**thouses burn, crumple, and go down.

Sakai