Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

The 8th Air Force's Sacrifice in the Air

Discussion in 'Air War in Western Europe 1939 - 1945' started by texson66, Nov 14, 2010.

  1. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    I reiterate you need to look up the definition of obsolete. The B-17 was a long way from being obsolete in 1942.

    Your rather selective comparison certainly fails to prove that, indeed it's not even clear that the Lancaster was superior to the B-17 especially in the roles the B-17 was used in. Certainly for daylight bombing where opposition might be encountered the B-17 was significantly superior to the Lancaster whose rather anemic armament would be a huge detriment not to mention the relative robustness that you already mentioned. I've also read that the B-17 was designed to be more producible but not sure of the details of that and also that it was a very reliable design unsure how it compares to the Lancaster in that regard.

    As for the Mosquito weren't they dependent on a particular type of wood? Sitka Spruce from what I recall. Was there enough in existence to have supported the numbers that would have been needed?
     
  2. mcoffee

    mcoffee Son-of-a-Gun(ner)

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,224
    Likes Received:
    435
    And how does that article back up your statement "For the first two years all its fighter aircraft were British"?

    The 4th Fighter Group was constituted on 22 August 1942. If flew its first USAAF mission on 2 October 1942. In January 1943 it transitioned to P-47's. It flew Spitfires in the USAAF for less than four months.

    The 31st Fighter Group flew In England from August to mid-October 1942 and then went to the MTO.

    The 52nd Fighter Group flew in England from August to September 1942 and then went to the MTO.

    Want to try again?
     
  3. mcoffee

    mcoffee Son-of-a-Gun(ner)

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,224
    Likes Received:
    435
    Since the USAAF official history is seven volumes, perhaps you could cite the specific reference where this scandal is recounted.
     
  4. albanaich

    albanaich New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2016
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    4
    You can believe or interpret any way you like. . . . I just supply the information.

    The USAAF official history is absolutely clear on the matter of the US fighter aircraft, its also on the senate record.

    The B17 first went into production in 1937, 5 years before its deployment in WWII, 5 years before the Lancaster and the Mosquito came into service. It was obselete. Get over it.

    It was forced into service and kept in production because there was nothing to replace it.

    The propaganda was never going to admit that USAAF procurement had totally screwed up in the years leading up to WWII and during the war the propaganda fantasy had to be continued for morale. It's over 70 years ago. Time get past the propaganda and look at the facts.

    The primary, but largely unintended role of the 8th Air Force was the destruction of the German fighter force over Germany.

    You might try reading volume one of the USAAF Official History - pages 612 - 646.
     
  5. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Regretfully, this statement is in error...you supply opinions based on information.


    Yes is it.

    Pg. 566

    See also
    ANNEX A: Allocations of Aircraft Other Than Fleet Air Arm Types to Great Britain
    Pg 568




    That would mean that the Supermarine Spitfire is also obsolete...Being as it first went into production in 1936.

    I would also presume that the Supermarine Spitfire


    Ever heard of the Consolidated B-24 Liberator? I guess not.
     
  6. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    TD-Tommy776 likes this.
  7. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    5,168
    Likes Received:
    2,140
    Location:
    God's Country
    That's not what the official history says. The 8th was planning to ferry their aircraft across to England using the B-17's to lead the fighters. Due to the situation in the Pacific the bombers were pulled and moved to the US West Coast. The fighter groups then transited by water but lacked the shipping space to bring their aircraft so were equipped with British aircraft upon arrival.

    It had been decided by the middle of April that the combat groups would fly their own planes--the 97th its B-17's, the 1st its P-38's, the 31st its P-39's--and that the Eighth Air Force would have responsibility fo the movement.134 To the VIII Fighter Command, under Brig. Gen. Frank O'D. Hunter, General Spaatz assigned control of the entire air movement. Because of the special hazards involved in the dispatch of fighter aircraft on long overseas hops, the B-17's were to be detailed to lead flights of up to six aircraft on each leg of the journey. -pg.641

    But while the combat units of the Eighth in New England studied the problems and procedures of the projected air movement,138 the Japanese fleet steamed toward Midway; and on 1 June, orders went out from Washington suspending the movement of the Eighth and directing that all planes be held on six hours' notice for dispatch to a new destination.139 The critical hour had come in the Pacific, and all available planes were moving west--west from Hawaii to Midway, from Hamilton and March to Hickam, and westward across the North American continent to fill the vacuum created on the Pacific coast by departures for Hawaii and the Aleutians, where the enemy also was expected. On 2 June the War Department ordered the 97th Bombardment Group and the 1st Fighter Group to the West Coast on assignment to the Western Defense Command.140 They would be released in approximately a week from this new assignment,141 and would return to New England from the Pacific coast to resume preparations for their trans-Atlantic movement, but the resultant delay occasioned by this emergency cost at least two weeks.* -pg. 641-642

    The 31st Fighter Group had been ordered on 4 June to proceed to England, but without the B-17's of the 97th to lead the P-39's across it was not considered practicable to move the unit by air.142 And so the 31st went by water, and having left its planes in the United States for the lack of space, it reached England by the middle of June to take up its station at Atcham and High Ercall west of Huntingdon.143 In lieu of the P-39's left behind, the unit promptly acquired RAF Spitfires, in which it began training almost at once.144 Thus it came about that the first complete American combat group in the European theater entered battle with British planes. It was not alone in this particular for it was followed in July and August by the 52d Fighter Group, which also made its movement by water and was equipped in the theater with Spitfires.145 -pg.642

    Army Air Forces in World War II
    Vol. I: Plans & Early Operations, January 1939 to August 1942

    Also, you're comparing the B-17 to the Lancaster but fail to note the B-17 had a 60% greater service ceiling of 35,600 ft, to the Arvo Lancaster's 21,400 ft. Speed is a defense against enemy interdiction (as in the Mosquito), the ability to operate at very high altitudes is another.
     
  8. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,773
    Likes Received:
    568
    Location:
    London UK
    Good job too. The Spitfire V was a far superior fighter to the P39 as an escort fighter for B17s. It had a far betyter performance at 24 k ft. The Eagle squadrons had experience that was invaluable for the 8th AF - gained on spitfires.

    At 35,000 ft the B17 could carry f-all ordnance and had all sorts of problems not experienced at the 25-27k ft flown by the 8th AF. The RAF tried using the B17s at 35k ft but binned it. No air force flew heavy bomber missions at 35k ft in WW2.

    The B17, B24 and Lancaster were comparable heavy bombers. The Lancster carried more bombs while the B17 and b24 carried more guns. The Lancaster was better for dropping bombs at night or against negligible fighter opposition. The B17 and B24 were better to fight their way by day through defended airspace. Neither was "better."
     
  9. albanaich

    albanaich New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2016
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    4
    Like I said you can make up any version of history you want from the information. That's how we create propaganda - by picking and choosing the information to tell the story we want to hear.

    It's called 'popular history' or 'history channel history'

    The P40, P39 and early P51 were unsuitable for combat in Europe against modern German types. They were obselte. The USAAF still had factories building them and they were directed to theatres other than in Europe and used in a grould attack role. The British swapped them out with Spitfires so the USAAF was equipped with decent aircraft engage in air combat with the Me109.

    The P38 was 'adequate' in the sense that the Hurriane was adequate, but it was an expensive and complicated aircraft to build and had a lot ot teething problems.

    This is all stated in the official histories. You know it, I know it.

    The Spitrire did not go into service until 1938, the Hurriance went into service in 1937 but required considerable modication. The Hurriance was obselete by 1942 and being taken out of service for frontline use.

    Yes I've heard of the B24, and you know and I know that its perfomance was not much different from the B17, while being considered a more fragile aircraft,

    So we come back to what the information tells and what the official history tells us.

    In 1942 most USAAF aircraft types were obselete, and wherever possible replaced.

    Do you really the British would of supplied the USAAF with 600 Spitfires if the USAAF had a useful alternative? Do you really think the USAAF would of accepted them?

    Of course the propaganda history has to tell the story of the USAAF coming to fight the war in Europe with their first rate aircraft, brilliant organisation, and overwhelming resources.

    That maybe how it was in 1945, but in 1942, the USAAF was poorly equipped, poorly organised, and had to have its whole infra-struture in Europe built for it by the British.

    It says that explicity in the USAAF history.
     
  10. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Yes, you write "History Channel History" very well. Do you work for them?


    The official history, via the previous quotes provided you, calls this statement into question.


    Actually, I would say the P-38 was less than adequate for the ETO, which is why most went to the PTO or MTO.


    Moving the goalposts are we. Your 'original' obsolete contention was when the aircraft entered production - 1937 for the B-17 & 1936 for the Spitfire.

    No matter...If you are relying on service dates, the B-17 and Spitfire both entered service in 1938. So, this still makes the Spitfire an obsolete aircraft.


    600 spitfires was what was supplied throughout the war, even when useful alternatives were to be had.


    Not any of the histories I have read.


    Yes, it was Reverse Lend-Lease. The British were in dire straits financially, so it was agreed that the British would provide the infrastructure in lieu of lend-lease payments.
     
  11. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    By any reasonable definition of the term you are wrong and you have completely failed to make a case for it. Indeed this last attempt is ludicrous. For example the M2 50 cal mg first went into service in 1933. It is still in service and not considered obsolete. If you want to look at planes examples like the B52, DC3, and the F4 clearly illustrate that the useful life of an airplane can easily exceed a decade much less 5 years.
     
  12. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    18,045
    Likes Received:
    2,364
    Location:
    Alabama
    Guys, just discuss it without the barbs, gotchas and grousing attitudes.

    Is it too much to ask?
     
  13. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Didn't the P-38 have better range than any comparable fighters of the time though at least until the P-51 and late P-47 came on line?
     
  14. USAAFson

    USAAFson Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2015
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    2
     

Share This Page