Author Topic: B-17G-65-BO 43-37516 TONDALAYO  (Read 14304 times)

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: B-17G-65-BO 43-37516 TONDALAYO
« Reply #30 on: December 08, 2011, 11:34:03 AM »
They started Operations in September 43 Krusty.  2,302 operational sorties flying over Germany and as far as Norway..  Seems to me they were taking the risk like everyone else.  They carried guns for a reason.  They actually claimed 3 E/A kills and 1 damaged so apparently they ran into the occasional night fighter.

Oh, yeah? I find that highly unlikely. 2302 sorties, maybe in total? Mar 1945... That's about 1.5 years from Sept '43. That's only 547 days. You're saying this one plane flew over 4 sorties a day? Most B-17s flew 1 mission a week... or 1 every 2 or 3 weeks.

So then we get to the overall totals.... They don't apply to this plane. What missions did it fly? In those markings? I think not many. An all-black B-17G flying in formation? There'd be millions of pictures of it, simply for the novelty of it. It was a specialty set of markings for night missions, and the US didn't do night bombing. Not in B-17s. Mostly you get leaflet drops. Pamplet runs. Because you weren't lugging around bombs you could afford the hundreds of pounds added by a thick black paintjob, and the drag inherent with it.

So tell me the combat record of this plane. This particular set of markings. As I mentioned I have nothing against the name, even the unit. But the historical record of this particular skin is unworthy of inclusion. Prove me wrong. Sway my opinion. What saving grace does it have that merits inclusion into the game other than the instant first-reaction of "It's black! Must have!"


I am honestly willing to be swayed, but it just ain't happening so far.

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20302
Re: B-17G-65-BO 43-37516 TONDALAYO
« Reply #31 on: December 08, 2011, 11:54:16 AM »
No you are just being silly Krusty.   On the night that B17 was shot down, there were 12 planes total from the squadron sent out.  One B17 and 11 B24s.  The photo below shows one of their all black 24s


I count 19 bomb symbols on that 17.  Note how they are shown on the 24 in the same position.  So it had 19 operational missions when that photo was taken.  That makes at least 20 since it went down on an operational sortie and I doubt they painted it on before hand.

The unit tended to send out up to a dozen bombers a night, which accounted for the sorties over the years.

Here is one of their earlier B17Fs.  Note at this point it was an all gloss black undersides.  Also note the flash suppressors on the MGs and the modified better vision top turret.  I'm assuming they took the 17G clear turret dome and adapted it to the F.


Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters


Offline lyric1

  • Skinner Team
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9911
Re: B-17G-65-BO 43-37516 TONDALAYO
« Reply #32 on: December 08, 2011, 02:48:33 PM »
Flying over Germany prior to the friendly fire on it's return.  Sure seems like a combat bird to me.  Just cause it didn't drop a bomb, doesn't mean the crew wasn't flying combat.  The 17s of the 406th NLS were stationed with the 305th BG.  Again the mission symbols are for operations.  It wasn't just flying around England :)
Agreed :aok I don't take issue of this plane being used in game.

Offline lyric1

  • Skinner Team
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9911
Re: B-17G-65-BO 43-37516 TONDALAYO
« Reply #33 on: December 08, 2011, 03:22:17 PM »

Let us not revisit the "a black P-38 would be awesome!"





 :D







Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: B-17G-65-BO 43-37516 TONDALAYO
« Reply #34 on: December 08, 2011, 03:33:45 PM »
No, I'm not being silly. I want to be shown where this plane with these markings was used against enemy targets with actual intent to bomb them.


Pamplette missions weren't combat. Just because they went on the missions (and tallied them up) doesn't mean anything other than they had a lot of pamplette missions!

In March 1945 simply flying "over Germany" didn't make it a combat mission. In March of 1945 you were more likely to run across SOVIETS over Germany than you were Germans!

By 18 april allied ground forces were already 70 miles from Berlin itself.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Advance_through_Germany_-_5-18_April_1945.jpg

So flying leaflettes over already-pacified cities is as risk free as you can get. They were probably sending notices about how civilians won't be harmed, surrender your weapons, etc, so that occupying forces had an easier time.

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20302
Re: B-17G-65-BO 43-37516 TONDALAYO
« Reply #35 on: December 08, 2011, 07:21:15 PM »
So a recon mission by a Mossie XVI or a Spit IX or a F5 Lightning, wouldn't count as a combat mission as they only took pictures?  C-47s dropping paratroops or supplies in hostile areas aren't flying combat? You don't drop leaflets on folks you are already in control of.  You drop them in areas where you hope to get and you are preparing the way

It's all part of the same overall plan to operate the airwar.   If you are operating over enemy territory with the potential to meet enemy aircraft or to deal with enemy flak and go down in enemy territory, it sure seems like a combat mission to me.
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters


Offline kilo2

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3441
Re: B-17G-65-BO 43-37516 TONDALAYO
« Reply #36 on: December 08, 2011, 07:37:34 PM »
They were in combat and I find it offensive that you would say something like that Krusty.

The men of that b-17 did their duty and were in just as much danger as any other b-17 in the war.
X.O. Kommando Nowotny
FlyKommando.com

"Never abandon the possibility of attack."

Offline beau32

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 615
Re: B-17G-65-BO 43-37516 TONDALAYO
« Reply #37 on: December 09, 2011, 05:13:01 PM »
http://www.801492.org/Air%20Crew/Aber/AberCrew.html

Here is a webpage on the Aber Crew and the Tondalayo. In it you will see the Night Leaflet Squadrons Operations reports (Jun44-Jul45). In that is the flights that the Tondalayo made (just look for 516 on the left side) Might be some intresting information that yall could use.
71 (Eagle) Squadron

"There is always a small microcosm of people who need to explain away their suckage."

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5740
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: B-17G-65-BO 43-37516 TONDALAYO
« Reply #38 on: December 12, 2011, 10:38:09 AM »
http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/skins.html

"Some basic guidlines:

- We will not accept skins containing the swastiska. NOTE: If you are making a skin that originally had a swastiska, just leave the spot blank where the swastiska would have been, or change the swatiska to the Iron Cross. Use your best judgement on this.
    
- We will not accept skins that alter the overall shape of the object.
    
- We will only accept skins that were historically used in World War II.

- Only submit the files/skins you actually change from the original.

- The text description file must be named by the object name, such as p51d.txt for a P51D skin, for example."



Gladly there's zero room for speculation here. The skin here meets the general guidelines set by HTC.
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: B-17G-65-BO 43-37516 TONDALAYO
« Reply #39 on: December 12, 2011, 10:46:54 AM »
http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/skins.html

"Some basic guidlines:

- We will not accept skins containing the swastiska. NOTE: If you are making a skin that originally had a swastiska, just leave the spot blank where the swastiska would have been, or change the swatiska to the Iron Cross. Use your best judgement on this.
   
- We will not accept skins that alter the overall shape of the object.
   
- We will only accept skins that were historically used in World War II.

- Only submit the files/skins you actually change from the original.

- The text description file must be named by the object name, such as p51d.txt for a P51D skin, for example."



Gladly there's zero room for speculation here. The skin here meets the general guidelines set by HTC.

Nice try, but no. It says right there "basic guidelines" and is not specific. We know for a fact that HTC has other criteria that they have expressed on the forums.

We know that no circus formation planes are allowed, as they were unarmed. We know no unarmed recon is allowed (save for the new Moss16, which is a singular case). We know that no captured skins are allowed. We know that no noncombatant skins were allowed. We know that combat skins are part of the criteria.

None of these things are on that "basic guidelines" page. You can't simply quote that page and pretend it's the end of the topic. It is simply a weak attempt on your part to imply as much, because you know better.

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5740
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: B-17G-65-BO 43-37516 TONDALAYO
« Reply #40 on: December 12, 2011, 10:53:06 AM »
Nice try, but no.

I didn't "try" anything. I quoted the only source who's opinion matters wheater something get accepted or not.


It is simply a weak attempt on your part to imply as much, because you know better.

See above. And btw, you've truly managed to make a royal a** of yourself in this thread.

Sorties that have a clear operational goal whatever it may be are not training flights.
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: B-17G-65-BO 43-37516 TONDALAYO
« Reply #41 on: December 12, 2011, 11:22:02 AM »
http://www.801492.org/Air%20Crew/Aber/AberCrew.html

Here is a webpage on the Aber Crew and the Tondalayo. In it you will see the Night Leaflet Squadrons Operations reports (Jun44-Jul45). In that is the flights that the Tondalayo made (just look for 516 on the left side) Might be some intresting information that yall could use.

A couple of the links are broken but I just finished reading through this:
http://www.801492.org/Air%20Crew/98Spring%20Air%20Power%20History%20(Leaflet%20Dropping%20in%20World%20War%20II).pdf

Very informative to any interested in what these bombers actually did. They were paper boys (to turn a phrase used in the article) most times delivering news leaflettes to update occupied civilians of what's going on in the larger war.

The entire unit was specifically made for leaflet dropping and was not used for any bombing missions. It doesn't sound as if they EVER ran into an enemy aircraft through the history of the unit, so far as I've been reading.



KILO: You need to look at the facts. This was about as far removed from combat as you could be and still be in-theater. Sure, there was a chance they could get shot down -- but same goes for the mail delivery planes. Same goes for the gas transport B-29s haulling supplies over to China. Same goes for any number of other "missions" which were non-combat in nature and not taking the fight to anyone or anything.

These aircraft were not bombers. To skin them as such -- to throw your sentiment back at you just to prove a point -- is offensive to those that WERE bombers.



WMAKER: you always revert to insults. You are 100% biased against anything I have ever posted, so I'm just going to ignore you. My point stands very strongly on its own 2 feet and on what HTC has said in the past on a LARGE number of topics which you choose blatantly to ignore. It is HTCs opinion that has been expressed and based on these other points of interest (which you gloss over and ignore) there is very valid concern that this skin doesn't belong in the game. Nor do a small selection of others already in-game, but that's for another topic.

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20302
Re: B-17G-65-BO 43-37516 TONDALAYO
« Reply #42 on: December 12, 2011, 11:29:20 AM »
A couple of the links are broken but I just finished reading through this:
http://www.801492.org/Air%20Crew/98Spring%20Air%20Power%20History%20(Leaflet%20Dropping%20in%20World%20War%20II).pdf

Very informative to any interested in what these bombers actually did. They were paper boys (to turn a phrase used in the article) most times delivering news leaflettes to update occupied civilians of what's going on in the larger war.

The entire unit was specifically made for leaflet dropping and was not used for any bombing missions. It doesn't sound as if they EVER ran into an enemy aircraft through the history of the unit, so far as I've been reading.



KILO: You need to look at the facts. This was about as far removed from combat as you could be and still be in-theater. Sure, there was a chance they could get shot down -- but same goes for the mail delivery planes. Same goes for the gas transport B-29s haulling supplies over to China. Same goes for any number of other "missions" which were non-combat in nature and not taking the fight to anyone or anything.

These aircraft were not bombers. To skin them as such -- to throw your sentiment back at you just to prove a point -- is offensive to those that WERE bombers.



WMAKER: you always revert to insults. You are 100% biased against anything I have ever posted, so I'm just going to ignore you. My point stands very strongly on its own 2 feet and on what HTC has said in the past on a LARGE number of topics which you choose blatantly to ignore. It is HTCs opinion that has been expressed and based on these other points of interest (which you gloss over and ignore) there is very valid concern that this skin doesn't belong in the game. Nor do a small selection of others already in-game, but that's for another topic.

Krusty you are very wrong in this case.  They were bombers, and operated by bomber crews, armed as bombers.  There bomb load happened to be leaflets.  They were flying over enemy territory and just as susceptible to enemy fire as any of the other bombers flying at night.  Considering how you are quick to point out how boring some of the Allied skins can be, I'd think you'd be all for something that was a combat bird and has a different look.
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters


Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: B-17G-65-BO 43-37516 TONDALAYO
« Reply #43 on: December 12, 2011, 11:31:33 AM »
That doesn't really apply as "combat" though, does it? It's a weak excuse to use exotic markings -- which were so marked because this plane was NOT used in regular combat.


So, it all goes back to "OMG! It's black! Must have in-game, don't care about the backstory!"


I'm all for interesting skins but frankly there are plenty of "legit" ones to choose from with lots of variety without having to resort to this kind of tactic.

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5740
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: B-17G-65-BO 43-37516 TONDALAYO
« Reply #44 on: December 12, 2011, 11:39:22 AM »
WMAKER: you always revert to insults. You are 100% biased against anything I have ever posted, so I'm just going to ignore you. My point stands very strongly on its own 2 feet and on what HTC has said in the past on a LARGE number of topics which you choose blatantly to ignore. It is HTCs opinion that has been expressed and based on these other points of interest (which you gloss over and ignore) there is very valid concern that this skin doesn't belong in the game. Nor do a small selection of others already in-game, but that's for another topic.

Considering your tone in this thread (and on several others) nothing that I now posted is an insult but a fact. I think the faith of this particular aircraft is rather telling that these men put their lives on the line. Friendly fire is a very real danger in a war. I certainly couldn't say it to their faces that they weren't flying combat missions. The FiAF Storch which I posted a thread about was used as a liason aircraft by FiAF HQ, transporting, mail, people, orders, documents and so on. Want to make a bet weather or not it will make it to the game? It served an airforce engaged in an air war like other aircraft of the said airforce.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2011, 11:48:13 AM by Wmaker »
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!