• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

'Offutt AFB, NE'

Panther_99FS

Panther_99FS

Retired SOH Administrator
It's only fitting that Offutt would have this on static display at the "SAC Gate"....:mixedsmi:

4009242367_d4c853a410_b.jpg
 
Nice picture, but I still think they look better parked on the ramp with puddles of oil marking their spot.
Curt :kilroy:
 
Thank goodness that they had the good sense to use a B-17F. They did all the B-17 work in the war. Kids nowadays are in love with the B-17G with that God-awful chin turret in it.
 
The chin turret was a field developement based on the head on attacks that were coming at the "F"s HD ... so some of those planes you see that have a chin turret on them are actually F model 17s.

In August of 1942, after the first couple missions into fortress europe, the USAAF determined that something was needed to help protect the formations, since the long range fighter was not available at the time. The USAAF came up with the XB-40 (conceptual) which was a B-17F converted to a "gunship" of sorts. (Later developements were called the B-40) They carried 14 .50 cals and twice the ammo of a standard b-17, and was more heavily armored to protect the gunners.

It was the XB-40 that started the concept of the chin turret. (Remember, just a modified F model.) However, after the formations dropped their bomb loads the B-40s were still too heavy with all their armor, and ammo that they couldn't keep up with the exiting empty B-17Fs as they skedaddled home, soon the "gunship" concept was eliminated ... at this point the air war hadn't been going on long a couple of months ... when the chin turret was developed. Very soon, hundreds of F model 17s were sporting the chin turret ... they were still known as F model B-17s even with the chin turret.

It should be noted that the chin turret is not the sole identifier of a G model 17 from an F model 17. The first G model 17 was delivered on Sept 4th 1943 so the air war was barely a year old when the G model came out, the concept of the chin turret came out in August 1942. Only weeks after the U.S. airwar started.

As to your claim of the F bearing the brunt of the work, that may be true, but I'll bet a dollar to a hot dog that many, if not most, of those F models had chin turrets.

And for the record ... Number of Models produced for the war:
B-17E 512
B-17F 3400 (some with chin turrets as a field modification)
B-17G 8680 (all with chin turrets as a factory modification but essentially still an F)

So I'm going out on a limb here and refuting your claim that the F was the work horse of WWII European bombing operations.
 
Snuffy, I am in awe....

Sure, a bomber is befitting of the SAC gate, but how many B-17s achieved notoriety with Strategic Air Command?

They sure do keep that aircraft in nice condition.
 
I would rather see a sign where the B-17 is currently parked saying:

The B-17 that was parked here has been restored and is now flying the skies once again. Sorry for the inconvenience.

__________________

As an aside...and not meaning to cause a ruckus....why is it that every one seems to forget that the B-17 had a very distinguished partner in the US heavy bomber category...the B-24. Virtually every bomber discussion revolves around the B-17 like it was the only heavy bomber in use by US crews. Nearly 6 thousand more B-24s were built than B-17s, so I am sure they did their fair share of the work in dropping bombs on Axis held areas...in Europe and the Pacific. Somehow the B-17 is held is such high esteem that it is credited with being the most decisive weapon of WW2.

OBIO
 
The B-17's have indeed gotten the lion's share of fame in movies, TV shows and books. I can't recall any classic air war flicks that featured B-24's. Nevertheless, the Libs were outstanding aircraft which certainly did their part in the US bombing campaigns. Their crews were just as fond of them as the B-17 boys were to their machines. That said, let's not get into one of those "my favorite plane is better than your favorite plane" threads.
 
tigisfat said:
... Sure, a bomber is befitting of the SAC gate, but how many B-17s achieved notoriety with Strategic Air Command? ...
Click to expand...

I'm willing to go out on a limb here and say that Strategic Air Command got its birth and start in the bombing campaign of WW2 skies with the 8th and most likely the 15th. At least the concept of it any how.
 
Helldiver said:
Thank goodness that they had the good sense to use a B-17F. They did all the B-17 work in the war. Kids nowadays are in love with the B-17G with that God-awful chin turret in it.
Click to expand...

I prefer the 17F as well. It was easier to shoot down.


Nice name for that particular F.
 
TARPSBird said:
The B-17's have indeed gotten the lion's share of fame in movies, TV shows and books. I can't recall any classic air war flicks that featured B-24's. Nevertheless, the Libs were outstanding aircraft which certainly did their part in the US bombing campaigns. Their crews were just as fond of them as the B-17 boys were to their machines. That said, let's not get into one of those "my favorite plane is better than your favorite plane" threads.
Click to expand...


Why? It's been widely documented that B-17s were esteemed by crews as more reliable, easier to operate and capable of taking more punishment.

It could be speculated that the love affair with B-17s started when the crew of the Memphis Belle was paraded around the country to build morale. They spread the word that B-17s were more likely to bring you home, as was their story.
 
but .. you can bet your skins they where told to hype up the storys ;)

At the end of the day the b17 just looks nicer to the general public .. its like the lanc and halifax debate... halifax did 3/4s of the work but the lanc looked pretty :engel016:
 
I have a question regarding that gate guardian. Is it a real B-17F or a B-17G converted to look like an F model?

As for why we have not seen war movies featuring B-24's, have you counted the number of airworthy B-24's in the world and compared them to the number of B-17's still flying? The B-24 could carry more bombs over a longer distance, but had to fly at lower altitudes and were not as sturdy as B-17's. When the war ended, the Army Air Force continued to use the B-17 for certain roles and many found new lives with civilian operators, but the B-24's went to the scrapper.

As for the ugly chin turret on the G... yes, it breaks the otherwise clean lines of the B-17. I really enjoyed the movie "Memphis Belle" that came out in 1990 because the production crew did a good job with costumes and converting a handful of B-17G's to look exactly like the B-17F's of 1943-44. Today, I cringe when I see one of these Forts still retaining the early model F top turret while sporting the refitted G model chin turret. I think if one of those Forts had been mine, I would have kept it looking like an F model.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top