Boeing B-17 Fortress in RAF Coastal Command Service
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 26000 to 28,000 lightyears from the galatic centre
Age: 77
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing B-17 Fortress in RAF Coastal Command Service
Further to post last year, the book is published on 20th May
Boeing B-17 Fortress
in RAF Coastal Command Service
Author(s): Robert M Stitt
Illustrator: Juanita Franzi
ISBN: 978-83-89450-88-3
Date: 20th May 2010
Series: White
Catalogue Number No. 9113
Category Forthcoming
Format A4 - Pages - 248 (64 in colour)
Price: 0 GBP
Rejected as a bomber by the RAF, the B-17 was used extensively as a long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft by Coastal Command. This book tells the fascinating story of these operations, a vital but often overlooked part of the fight against the U-Boats. All the aircraft involved are listed, and the tedious but essential work of their crews described, including some epic encounters with enemy submarines. Fully illustrated with many wartime photos, and scale plans of the airframe modifications. Full colour profiles of representative aircraft.
Boeing B-17 Fortress
in RAF Coastal Command Service
Author(s): Robert M Stitt
Illustrator: Juanita Franzi
ISBN: 978-83-89450-88-3
Date: 20th May 2010
Series: White
Catalogue Number No. 9113
Category Forthcoming
Format A4 - Pages - 248 (64 in colour)
Price: 0 GBP
Rejected as a bomber by the RAF, the B-17 was used extensively as a long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft by Coastal Command. This book tells the fascinating story of these operations, a vital but often overlooked part of the fight against the U-Boats. All the aircraft involved are listed, and the tedious but essential work of their crews described, including some epic encounters with enemy submarines. Fully illustrated with many wartime photos, and scale plans of the airframe modifications. Full colour profiles of representative aircraft.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK LM, the B17 was a small part of Coastal Command's inventory.
Another little known fact is that in WWII four Coastal Command officers won the Victoria Cross.
Another little known fact is that in WWII four Coastal Command officers won the Victoria Cross.
Coastal Command had to battle hard to get any Fortresses or Liberators allocated to them as the Chief of Air Staff wanted them for the bomber offensive and the americans were "restive about the use of Fortress aircraft in Coastal Command on tasks other than high level bombing raids."
IIRC the Fortress and Liberator could fly higher than RAF bombers but had smaller bomb loads...
IIRC the Fortress and Liberator could fly higher than RAF bombers but had smaller bomb loads...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Battle of the Atlantic was not highest priority for many, B17 was useful but the VLR Lib was a key part in the final victory for the Allies, 17+ hours of flying time was exceptional and probably did more to close the Atlantic Gap than any other aeroplane.
Libs over occupied Europe were an inflammable liability with limited bomb loads. The wonders of hindsight indicate that the daytime raids should have been undertaken by Mossies accompanied by whatever escort fighters the Americans were using. The Mossies could always stooge around for a bit if the Yanks had difficulty keeping up...
Libs over occupied Europe were an inflammable liability with limited bomb loads. The wonders of hindsight indicate that the daytime raids should have been undertaken by Mossies accompanied by whatever escort fighters the Americans were using. The Mossies could always stooge around for a bit if the Yanks had difficulty keeping up...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 26000 to 28,000 lightyears from the galatic centre
Age: 77
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am advised by Robert that the answers to all the questions set out above are in the book!
Fyi my interest in this is that my Pop (who is still around) was a Flight Eng on 220 Sqdn (B17) and 547 Sqdn (B24) and has assisted Robert with input to the book.
***
Fyi my interest in this is that my Pop (who is still around) was a Flight Eng on 220 Sqdn (B17) and 547 Sqdn (B24) and has assisted Robert with input to the book.
***
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure of the exact era this book covers, but by late in the war the B-17G with its chin turret was greatly preferred for the strategic bombing mission. Earlier marks were probably released for other roles.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: london
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The USAAC sent the B17 into the ETO (European theatre of operations) with the idea that being so heavily armed together with its specialised flight formation would enable B17s to fly over enemy territory in daylight without fighter escort - But regretably this policy produced near disastrous results
The B24 was its counterpart - but among many US aircrews it had a reputation for being a heavy difficult a/c to fly - needing constant hands
on controls at all times - Ready to catch any unwary pilot out.
Later in the war the Liberator was converted into the heavily armed
extra long range Privateer PB4y - with extended nose, single high fin
and extra power operated side and nose turrets. Used mostly by
the USN in the Pacific and South Asian waters and war zones.
For every day of WW11 Coastal Command lost one of its airmen.
The B24 was its counterpart - but among many US aircrews it had a reputation for being a heavy difficult a/c to fly - needing constant hands
on controls at all times - Ready to catch any unwary pilot out.
Later in the war the Liberator was converted into the heavily armed
extra long range Privateer PB4y - with extended nose, single high fin
and extra power operated side and nose turrets. Used mostly by
the USN in the Pacific and South Asian waters and war zones.
For every day of WW11 Coastal Command lost one of its airmen.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there any reason why it was deemed unsuitable for Bomber Command use? After all it was the workhorse of the American bomber effort in Europe, and served with some distinction in the far east as well.
I very much doubt that precision at all. It had a bomb sight supposedly capable of precision bombing - but that was on a clear day against a stationary target and not in combat conditions.
I recall reading - I think in Human Smoke - that the RAF were not impressed with the B-17 but there was a lot of pressure from the govt to publicize they were being used on bombing missions and to overplay their contribution. No doubt to foster more support in the USA.
But I don't know why the RAF didn't rate the B-17 as a bomber.
I recall reading - I think in Human Smoke - that the RAF were not impressed with the B-17 but there was a lot of pressure from the govt to publicize they were being used on bombing missions and to overplay their contribution. No doubt to foster more support in the USA.
But I don't know why the RAF didn't rate the B-17 as a bomber.
Last edited by Load Toad; 3rd May 2010 at 09:06.
The first evaluations of the B17 by the RAF were a failure. They had the B17C model which they called the Fortress Mk1. They attempted bombing from 30,000' and had very little sucess - no hits were recorded at all in the first two raids. And the guns froze. I suppose it found it hard to shake off this initial impression.
And subsequent marks failed to address the problems of the B17s limited load after more crew, defensive guns and armour were added. A typical B17 load was 4,500lbs of bombs. The Lancaster was carrying between 12 and 16,000lbs, and modified eventually carried 22,000lbs. Even the Mosquito could manage 4,000lbs.
And subsequent marks failed to address the problems of the B17s limited load after more crew, defensive guns and armour were added. A typical B17 load was 4,500lbs of bombs. The Lancaster was carrying between 12 and 16,000lbs, and modified eventually carried 22,000lbs. Even the Mosquito could manage 4,000lbs.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why Few RAF Fortresses?
Heavies were a UK invention, 1935/36, to extend inland Britain's traditional mode of warfare, which was to visit mass destruction upon our enemy's infrastructure. Long the task of RN, blockade and bombardment, RAF was to be a Force of aerial Monitors. From April,1938 much of UK engineering industry was turned to producing Warwick, Manchester, Stirling, Halifax. France's nationalised aero-industry was riddled with Communist Unions, who presumed Heavies would be used against the Workers' Paradise, so French Govt. funded its 4-motor from Consolidated, LB-30.
1936/37-US had no need for any of this, but funded a batch of B-17B as maritime patroller: nose-gun-only to strafe and to deal with rising carrier-borne interceptors; "walking" release of small bombs, Norden-aimed, to scatter the Imperial Navy approaching Philippines, to be disposed of by USN. Boeing mispriced it and faced bankruptcy; UK ordered 20 B-17C (for cash money): that plus a French order on Douglas for 240 DB-7 (Boston I), subbed to Boeing in April,1940, paid by UK, kept them alive.
The Task of deep inland bombardment given to RAF in 1935/36 was not given to USAAF until mid-1940. FDR funded Very Heavy B-29/B-32, to be preceded by B-17E/F/G, took over (to be) B-24, and converted non-aero resources - Rosie the Rivetter - into a shadow production system (Govt. Plants at Renton, Wichita, Douglas and Vega for B-17s, Ford's Willow Run phenomenon for B-24) and made the human investment to operate thousands...maybe from 1943. From March,1941 Lend/Lease was on offer to the King's Forces (US, remember, was neutral!), but UK chose not to request large quantities of distant B-17 (D, in build: E, onway), because UK Heavies would arrive sooner (Stirling already here, Halifax imminent) and tried instead to have Lancasters licence-built in US. From 8 December,1941 it suited both US and UK to turn US/Canadian bauxite into US designs in US and into UK designs in UK/Canada.
RAF did take c.200 B-17E/F/G, confined to Coastal and to ECM; the King's Forces did operate more B-24s (2,443) than Stirlings (2,369), largely in Commonwealth/overseas Units. Reasons are your choice of: ops. were complex enough just mixing up Forces of multiple-Brit types; no Norden sight; supply chain must be wholly separate for MilSpec bits from BS bits. Mull gently on Targeting Policy: UK/US agreed the Combined Bomber Offensive at the highest policy level, then left daily detail to the men at the coal face. FDR could have taken very close interest, say in "area" as opposed to "panacea" targeting, if UK had been using his kit.
1936/37-US had no need for any of this, but funded a batch of B-17B as maritime patroller: nose-gun-only to strafe and to deal with rising carrier-borne interceptors; "walking" release of small bombs, Norden-aimed, to scatter the Imperial Navy approaching Philippines, to be disposed of by USN. Boeing mispriced it and faced bankruptcy; UK ordered 20 B-17C (for cash money): that plus a French order on Douglas for 240 DB-7 (Boston I), subbed to Boeing in April,1940, paid by UK, kept them alive.
The Task of deep inland bombardment given to RAF in 1935/36 was not given to USAAF until mid-1940. FDR funded Very Heavy B-29/B-32, to be preceded by B-17E/F/G, took over (to be) B-24, and converted non-aero resources - Rosie the Rivetter - into a shadow production system (Govt. Plants at Renton, Wichita, Douglas and Vega for B-17s, Ford's Willow Run phenomenon for B-24) and made the human investment to operate thousands...maybe from 1943. From March,1941 Lend/Lease was on offer to the King's Forces (US, remember, was neutral!), but UK chose not to request large quantities of distant B-17 (D, in build: E, onway), because UK Heavies would arrive sooner (Stirling already here, Halifax imminent) and tried instead to have Lancasters licence-built in US. From 8 December,1941 it suited both US and UK to turn US/Canadian bauxite into US designs in US and into UK designs in UK/Canada.
RAF did take c.200 B-17E/F/G, confined to Coastal and to ECM; the King's Forces did operate more B-24s (2,443) than Stirlings (2,369), largely in Commonwealth/overseas Units. Reasons are your choice of: ops. were complex enough just mixing up Forces of multiple-Brit types; no Norden sight; supply chain must be wholly separate for MilSpec bits from BS bits. Mull gently on Targeting Policy: UK/US agreed the Combined Bomber Offensive at the highest policy level, then left daily detail to the men at the coal face. FDR could have taken very close interest, say in "area" as opposed to "panacea" targeting, if UK had been using his kit.
Some of what I've read (Human Smoke being one recent example) implies that 'The bomber will always get through' was a belief held by FDR, WC and many others and the bombing of Germany and Japan as a way to win the war were considered a very, very good option (take the war to the civilians - show them what the horror of total war is etc). So much so that when it wasn't working there was a great deal of pressure to say that it was working and would work.
The B-17, bought from the US... The RAF (trying to show bombing would work) tried it - flying high enough to keep away from too many fighters it could not carry many bombs, needed a lot of crew. Fly low - attracted too many fighters. At this time before the US was trying to bomb in daylight over Europe, the US was saying 'Oh - fly lower - fly more planes in and use covering fire - easy peasy lemon squeazy.' Which as we know turned out to be not a good idea at all. But remember - as with all things the 'Management' bring out - you have to be very careful how you disagree with it.
So then the RAF had a bunch of planes that it couldn't bomb Europe with but could fly about and look for submarines and such. Hence it got that job. Fair comment?
The B-17, bought from the US... The RAF (trying to show bombing would work) tried it - flying high enough to keep away from too many fighters it could not carry many bombs, needed a lot of crew. Fly low - attracted too many fighters. At this time before the US was trying to bomb in daylight over Europe, the US was saying 'Oh - fly lower - fly more planes in and use covering fire - easy peasy lemon squeazy.' Which as we know turned out to be not a good idea at all. But remember - as with all things the 'Management' bring out - you have to be very careful how you disagree with it.
So then the RAF had a bunch of planes that it couldn't bomb Europe with but could fly about and look for submarines and such. Hence it got that job. Fair comment?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: london
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If interested in photos of aerial combat over Singapore and Johore involving a Privateer and Liberators then google following -
PRIVATEERS FLYING OVER JOHORE
or try - CONSOLIDATED PB4Y-2 Privateer Saga
The Japanese airstrip shown under the tail would later be utilised by
the RAOC as a huge vehicle storage unit (221 VEH BN) when the
British returned to Malaya.
PRIVATEERS FLYING OVER JOHORE
or try - CONSOLIDATED PB4Y-2 Privateer Saga
The Japanese airstrip shown under the tail would later be utilised by
the RAOC as a huge vehicle storage unit (221 VEH BN) when the
British returned to Malaya.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Winnipeg Mb. Canada
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fortress
There is a great book by the authour, Murray Peden, entitled 'A Thousand Shall Fall'
In the appendix there is a copy of a letter by Sir Arthur Harris who writes to Peden.
"I have just finished your book---in fact I found it hard to put down.
I consider it is not only the best and most true to life 'War' book I've read about this war, but the best about all the wars of my lifetime---from the Boer war onwards".
Murray Peden was a young lad from Winnipeg who trained as a pilot under the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan at various bases across the Canadian prairies. He went overseas and flew many missions on Stirlings. Later, he converted to the Fortress with many more missions accomplished. Lots of good stories about the B-17.
In the words of Sir Arthur, hard to put this book down.
Hopefully, for anyone interested, it might be available at a local library.
Geo.
In the appendix there is a copy of a letter by Sir Arthur Harris who writes to Peden.
"I have just finished your book---in fact I found it hard to put down.
I consider it is not only the best and most true to life 'War' book I've read about this war, but the best about all the wars of my lifetime---from the Boer war onwards".
Murray Peden was a young lad from Winnipeg who trained as a pilot under the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan at various bases across the Canadian prairies. He went overseas and flew many missions on Stirlings. Later, he converted to the Fortress with many more missions accomplished. Lots of good stories about the B-17.
In the words of Sir Arthur, hard to put this book down.
Hopefully, for anyone interested, it might be available at a local library.
Geo.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: england
Age: 61
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok, can anyone put this oft heard rumour to bed.
during the 8TH airforce war apparently there was much "friendly" banter between B17 and B24 crews as to which was the better aircraft.
on a B17 training flight, a lone B24 dives out of cloud cover with 2 engines feathered and pulls ahead of the formation, fooling the fortress crews into believing a liberator is faster on TWO engines!!
any truth??
during the 8TH airforce war apparently there was much "friendly" banter between B17 and B24 crews as to which was the better aircraft.
on a B17 training flight, a lone B24 dives out of cloud cover with 2 engines feathered and pulls ahead of the formation, fooling the fortress crews into believing a liberator is faster on TWO engines!!
any truth??
But the B24 couldn't take so much punishment and ISTR that the US air Force wanted a B17 only bomber force in Europe?
relative production figures from WRG...
B17 = total 12731
B24 = total 19203
Similar in the UK,the other manufacturers tried to get the Lancaster scrapped and Avro to build Halifax etc,only a very quick mod programme by Chadwick saved the a/c,istr mostly chucking out any equipment which was not absolutely necessary - thereby bringing the basic weight down and improving the already impressive load carrying capabilities of the Lanc.
I think the Boeing PR team convinced most people that the B17 won the war.
However...given the choice of B17/B24 to fly...I would go along with B17....because (allegedly) it was akin to flying a 4 engine Cub
