Bomber Command

Bomber Command took great losses and did a great job in destroying a vicious and cruel enemy that lacked any sense of humanity whatever. We all took pride in the job they did and were proud of their achevements in ending a cruel war begun by a vicious enemy. Bomber Command has the respect of all of us who flew. And no one else really counts.

Arthur Kramer 344th Bomb Group,9th Air Force England France Belgium Holland Germany

for email reply remove MAPSON from address

The RAF Bomber Command types I have talked to were equally appreciative of the USAAF efforts, and awed by the fact they operated by day, and in such large formations (mid-airs [collisions] were a constant nightmare to the night bomber crews). Only a few were disparaging of the relatively small bombload; most fully understood the concept of both bombing and drawing up the fighters for hand-to-hand engagements.

Well said. Rob Davis MSc MIAP Anstey, Leicester UK. 0976 379489

When you look at the Flying Fortress the name says it all. No other bomber could give and take so much punishment. My admittedly limited understanding of Trenchard is that, 'the bomber will always get through.' And, 'be alright on the night'. I think the Americans must have been absolutely shocked when those Forts started getting shot down. At 260 MPH and a 33,000 ft ceiling it's hard to imagine that a formation would be vulnerable. German Flak took a toll. In Mephis Belle you see the bomber bouncing around in the flak, but I was told this was not the case. Unless hit, of course.

If this is in reference to Luftwaffe fighters shooting down B-17s, the Americans weren't surprised this happened. Originally, it was not planned that the US bombers would fly unescorted raids except on rare occasions for high priority targets. The first US 8th AF contingent, it should be remembered, contained both a heavy bombardment group and a long-range fighter ecort group. The fighter group was almost immediately stripped away and sent to support Torch in North Africa. It was then hoped that the 8th could mass enough bombers to allow it to attack into Germany with sustainable losses, but bomber groups were stripped away to support operations in the Med, including the creation of another entire heavy bomber air force, the 15th, and such mass was never obtained. It should also be pointed out that the 8th was not able to bomb many purely strategic targets. First it was tied up with defeating the Luftwaffe, bombing aircraft factories, etc., then acting as a lure to bring up fighters, basically flying as a giant circus to politically sensitive targets like Berlin. Then it was diverted to bomb the V-1 sites, then targets to support Overlord, and acted as flying heavy artillery once the troops were on the ground. Its planes were also diverted to fly thousands of air supply missions for the troops, and even were sent to drop supplies into the Warsaw ghetto. The key strategic target that the 8th's leaders wanted to attack was oil. They were able to make some attacks against it, but the top priorities generally were something of more immediate tactical value, from tank factories to rail heads. Ira Eaker, one of the great US proponents of strategic bombardment wrote a note to Carl Spaatz in Sept, 1945, some months after the end of the European war in which he commented, 'I have come to believe that strategic bombing has fallen into the same category as Christianity. It is a wonderful idea. Unfortunately, nobody has ever tried it.'

The only time a B-17 hit 260 mph was in a vertical dive. 135 mph was more like it in normal cruise in auto lean throttled back to get greatest range. If a B-17 ever hit 260 mph, I hope the crew got out first. (grin)

Arthur Kramer 344th Bomb Group,9th Air Force England France Belgium Holland Germany

I hope you don't mind if I ask a question of you Art. I Don't know if you would know the answer or not. You know those bombs that skipped off the water, that were used to attack the Roer dams? Could any bomb do that? If you came in low, over water, and at a certain speed, could you get a normal bomb to skip like that and 'bounce' to a specific target? Just curious about an episode I read in an old book and I am thinking of trying to write it into screenplay and I need to know what I will be talking about. May I ask you other questions from time to time as I go along? Thank you

Sincerely, kurt bowker

for email reply remove MAPSON from address

'And the rest, they came aboard us and they fought us hand to hand; for a dozen times they came with their pikes and musqueteers; and a dozen times we shook them off like a dog that shakes his ears when he leaps from the water to the land. And the sun went down, and the stars shone out high over the summer sea; but never a moment ceased the fight of the one and the fifty-three.'

-Tennyson, THE REVENGE

Rob Davis MSc MIAP Anstey, Leicester UK. 0976 379489

Doubtless a former aircrew member knows of the difference between Indicated Air Speed (IAS) and True Air Speed (TAS). However a casual reader of aviation war stories probably does not.

Here is a short explanation of the reason for the discrepancy between your 135 MPH and the 260 MPH.

At 33,000 feet, a TAS of 260 MPH occurs at an IAS of 151 MPH. At an IAS of 135 MPH, the TAS is 233 MPH. For ground based anti-aircraft fire, the apparent speed of the aircraft is the TAS - really cranking along.

For an intercepting fighter plane at the same altitude, the speed that counts for him is the IAS, not the TAS. So that 400 MPH TAS rated interceptor actually sees about 232 MPH on his air speed indicator. That gives him about 100 MPH speed advantage at the interception altitude.

Your explaination is wrong. There is no way a B-17 indicated 260 mph in level flight at any alltitude. The conversion of 135mph to 260 mph is not accurate. And the B-17 never operated at 33,000 feet.

Arthur Kramer 344th Bomb Group,9th Air Force England France Belgium Holland Germany

The name was accidental. Because of internal politics in the military, the Boeing Model 299 was commissioned for the declared purpose of coastal defence. This was a backdoor way of obtaining a stategic bomber at a time when there was considerable opposition to such a thing. It rolled out on 16 July 1935 and the following day there were headlines announcing a new '15 ton flying fortress', which came from the concept that the aircraft was to replace coastal defence forts. Boeing recognised that this was an excellent name and registered it shortly afterwards.

Colin Bignell

Who said that the IAS was 260 MPH? I certainly didn't. The original poster didn't, either. You might try to read a little closer, lest your credibilty be further damaged. I also did not say that 135 mph was equivalent to 260 mph. I did not say that the B-17 operated at 33,000 feet either. What I said was:

If you want to quibble, you will have to quibble with my MK-6B flight computer, or try out your own.