pierson@cimnet.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson) (06/17/91)
From: pierson@cimnet.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson) Personally, i have to think, much as i love airships, and chasing their history, that LTA (lighter than air) would be simply LST (Large Slow Target) in todays environment. The point of WWII effectiveness of the (sometimes forgotten) blimp (nonrigid) fleet is good, but much has changed. (The WWII operational area extended to Brazil, and, eventually, the Med.) Speed, for the big rigids, (and as quoted elsewhere, for the blimps) was 80-90mph range. The transatlantic commercial service would better this by "pattern flying", which involved taking a (usually northerly) course westbound and a (usually southerly) course westbound. (or vice-versa) to maximize the tail wind, and tuning that to the specific, current position of the weather. Ground handling was a reasonably solved problem, by 1930, at least in half way decent weather. Consider Shenendoah, Los Angeles, Akron & Macon, the USN rigids. Shenendoah, "hung up" intact, to free Helium for Los Angeles & other uses. Los Angeles lost in a thunderstorm in the mid west. Akron, flown into the water, in a storm, in the Atlantic (for lack of radio altimeter). Macon, broke up in mid air, returning from fleet exercises in the Pacific. May (or may not) have been due to problems with a repair from a ground handling accident. (i could do lines on each of these, but decline, as i see the edge of the charter right over THERE...(I may have Akron & Macon reversed)). Each of them, even pre radar, was routinely shot down early in exercises. RADAR would help them, but also make them (or successors) very "visible". LTA would, imo, be a fine tool, so long as nobody was shooting at it... context switch: re the comments on B52s as AAM launchers/carriers, and a lost post about the lack of success trying to get bombers through without fighters in WWII. hmmmm I wonder. There was not, that i know, an attempt to send along gunship only B17s, which would be a closer analogy... Would it have worked? we'll never know. [The problem with the Bombers-as-gunships was that they were heavily armored and carried a LOT of ammo since they had no bombs. After the other B17s dropped their bombs, the gunships were much much slower, and either got left behind or made everyone slow down so they could keep up. It turned out to be a losing proposition. All of this was covered in considerable detail in previous issues of sci.military. --CDR] dave pierson |the facts, as accurately as i can manage, Digital Equipment Corporation |the opinions, my own. 600 Nickerson Rd Marlboro, Mass 01752 pierson@cimnet.enet.dec.com
smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) (06/19/91)
From: smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) In pierson@cimnet.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson) writes... > ... >Ground handling was a reasonably solved problem, by 1930, at least in >half way decent weather. Consider Shenendoah, Los Angeles, Akron & >Macon, the USN rigids. Shenendoah, "hung up" intact, to free Helium >for Los Angeles & other uses. Los Angeles lost in a thunderstorm in >the mid west. I think it was the Shenendoah that broke-up in the mid-west and the Los Angeles was decommisioned and sold as scrap. BTW, the Los Angeles was built by Zeppelin in Germany as part of WW I war reparations. ____________________________ May all your scores be 'X's! _____________________________
patter@bellcore.bellcore.com (06/25/91)
From: mruxb!patter@bellcore.bellcore.com On the issue of sending B-17 gunships over Germany. Yes, it was tried. The ship was called the B-17F. According to a book I have by Jablonski, they did real well on the run *to* Germany, but as soon as the real bombers unloaded, they ran for home. The gunships couldn't keep up and they were no match for the defending fighters. The chin turret used on the G models was first tried on the Fs.
jfb@ihlpm.att.com (Joseph F Baugher) (06/27/91)
From: jfb@ihlpm.att.com (Joseph F Baugher) In article <1991Jun25.022204.22999@cbnews.cb.att.com>, mruxb!patter@bellcore.bellcore.com writes: > > > From: mruxb!patter@bellcore.bellcore.com > On the issue of sending B-17 gunships over Germany. Yes, it was tried. > The ship was called the B-17F. According to a book I have by Jablonski, > they did real well on the run *to* Germany, but as soon as the real > bombers unloaded, they ran for home. The gunships couldn't keep up and > they were no match for the defending fighters. The chin turret used on > the G models was first tried on the Fs. > Here are a few more details on the escort version of the B-17 bomber, which bore the designation YB-40. Hope someone finds this as interesting as I did! The bomber escort variant of the Flying Fortress was designated YB-40, where Y stood for "service test". It was produced in an attempt to provide better defenses for B-17 daylight bomber forces which were suffering appalling losses in their raids against German targets on the European continent. The first XB-40 prototype was produced by the Vega division of Lockheed. They converted a standard Boeing-built B-17F to escort configuration by adding a dorsal turret aft of the radio compartment carring a pair of 0.50-cal machine guns, a chin turret equipped with a pair of 0.50 cal machine guns, and twin gun mounts instead of the usual single gun mounts at each waist position. The bomb bays were replaced by storage areas which carried additional ammunition for the guna. Additional protective armor was also fitted. Twenty more Vega-built B-17Fs were converted to YB-40 configuration, plus four TB-40 trainers. A variety of different armament configurations was tried. Some YB-40s were fitted with four-gun nose and tail turrets. Some carried cannon of up to 40-mm in calibre, and a few carried up to as many as 30 guns of various calibres in multiple hand-held positions in the waist as well as in additional power turrets above and below the fuselage! Oddly enough, there don't seem to have been any photographs ever published of these 30-gun YB-40s (insofar as I am aware), although I have seen some drawings. The first operational YB-40 sortie took place in May 1943 against St. Nazaire. Eight othere missions were later flown. Very early on, it was found that the effect of the additional drag of the turrets, plus the extra weight of the guns, armor, and additional ammunition, was to reduce the speed of the YB-40 to a point where it could not maintain formation with the standard B-17s that it was supposed to protect, especially on the way home from the target after the B-17s had released their bombs. The YB-40 could protect itself fairly well, but not the bombers it was supposed to defend. Consequently, it was recognized that the YB-40 was an operational failure, and the surviving YB-40s were converted back to standard B-17F configuration or used as gunnery trainers back in the States. However, the YB-40 was to have one lasting impact. The chin turret originally introduced on the YB-40 was later adopted as standard for the B-17G series. For all of you serial-number freaks, here are the numbers for the YB-40s: XB-40: Conversion of B-17F-1-BO Ser. No. 41-24342 YB-40: Conversions of B-17F-10-VE Ser. Nos. 42-5732/5744 B-17F-30-VE Ser. No. 42-5871 B-17F-35-VE Ser. No. 42-5920, 5921, 5923, 5924, 5925, and 5927. References: United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter Bowers Famous Bombers of the Second World War, William Green Joe Baugher AT&T Bell Laboratories 200 Park Plaza Naperville, Illinois 60566-7050 (708) 713 4548 ihlpm!jfb jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com
002@pnet16.cts.com (J.W.Cupp Lcdr/Usn) (06/27/91)
From: 002@pnet16.cts.com (J.W.Cupp Lcdr/Usn) mruxb!patter@bellcore.bellcore.com writes: >On the issue of sending B-17 gunships over Germany. Yes, it was tried. >The ship was called the B-17F. According to a book I have by Jablonski, I have Jablonski's book, too. As I recall, there's an anecdote about the gunships, in which one was fashioned 'in the trenches' of the Italian theatre. Seems an Italian pilot had gotten ahold of a captured P-38 and was bringing down far too many Allied aircraft, so B-17 gunship was used as bait to trap him. (It's been a long time since I read it...hope I have the details correct ;-) ). UUCP: humu!nctams1!pnet16!002 Naval Telecommunications Center ARPA: humu!nctams!pnet16!002@nosc.mil P.O. Box 55 INET: 002@pnet16.cts.com Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 96860 The above is merely my opinion, and not to be construed as anything else.
military@cbnews (06/28/91)
From: att!bcr!mruxb!patter You have the details right. They found that the Italian pilot was from Naples, which was in Allied hands, and that his wife was still there. An artist painted her picture and name on the nose of the gunship as bait and it worked. According to Jablonski, the P-38 pilot would feather a prop and move in close to straggler "for mutual protection". The straggler would usually jettison the guns to save weight, then the P-38 would start up the dead engine, come in, and shoot the bomber down. The air force found out what was happening when some crews were picked up out of the Med. sea.
WAUGH@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (06/28/91)
From: WAUGH@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU The B-17 variant mentioned as bait to trap the Italian pilot in the captured P-38 was described in Martin Caidin's book _Fork-tailed Devel_. The B-17 gunship was outfitted with 50 caliber BMG and 40 mm cannons. The nose was supposedly painted with a picture of the Italian pilots lover who had been discovered and interrogated by Allied intelligence. When the rogue P-38 intercepted the bristling B-17 posing as a straggler from a bombing raid the pilot of the P-38 saw the picture of his enamorata on the bombers nose and hailed the B-17s pilot on the radio. Feeling they had indeed met with their intended target the crew of the bomber took turns in describing their romantic escapades with their ships mascot. As the tales grew more and more lurid the Italian pilot of the P-38 could stand no more. He became enraged and attacked one of the most heavily armed B-17s ever to fly. In short order the P-38 spiraled into the Mediterranian. The Italian was not killed however when his captured aircraft hit the water and the crew of the bomber saw him climb out on the wing cursing the B-17 and no doubt his own stupidity. Caiden also relates that the pilots of both aircraft survived the war and met one another later. Their conversation was not recorded but one may speculate it was very interesting. Brian Waugh WAUGH@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU