B 17's amazing escape!

[gully_raker]

:thumbsup: G'day Chaps. I came accross this series of Pics of a B 17 in 1943 that got rammed by an out of control ME 109. The collision nearly severed the tail section but amazingly the Pilot was able to nurse the bird back to base. The 17 was called "All American" & I am sure if you do a Google search you should find more details.

5074450745

[Blauer Baron]

"Crumbs"...as an Englishman might say. ( meaning = Wow! :eek:).

Just imagine that, and very near to that gunners position..:erk:

[Naharaht]

One of the tactics the German pilots of Sonderkommando "ELBE" were encouraged to employ was to try to cut off the tail surfaces of American bombers by ramming them with their wing.

[Grey Knight]

Imagine what the crew chief had to say...

[Old Navy]

Crew Cheif says,"New source of spare parts."
Tail Gunner says,"I need a new flightsuit!"

[csadn]

All I know is: Never perform an Internet image search using the phrase "rammed by" with the "family-friendly" filter turned off.

(OH, it was a Dark Day when I learned *THAT* little nugget of information....)

[James Denberger]

All I know is: Never perform an Internet image search using the phrase "rammed by" with the "family-friendly" filter turned off.

(OH, it was a Dark Day when I learned *THAT* little nugget of information....)

And WHY? would an officer and a gentleman Eeeeeever.......... search the internet without the family filter on? HMmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? :confused::eek::embarass:

James :slysmile:

[wargamer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqNoRNJSXx0

http://www.reddog1944.com/414th_Squadron_Planes_and_Crews.htm#Bragg

[Marechallannes]

What a damage! :eek:

I bet, that their comrades in the other B17s couldn't believe that this bird was still flying after this crash.

Looks like an early B17 version 1943? What happened to the crew in the next month/years? Did they survive the war?

[csadn]

And WHY? would an officer and a gentleman Eeeeeever.......... search the internet without the family filter on? HMmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Several reasons:

1) I have no family.
2) Sometimes I have to look up phrases with non-Forum-friendly language.

As to Marechallanes's comment: There's the joke told of a Boeing Corporation airliner-sales rep who traveled to Germany to sell some acft. to Lufthansa. The LH rep asks why they should buy Boeing acft., to which the Boeing rep says, "Are you aware of our product's legendary toughness?" In response, the LH rep walks to the window, and opens the curtain -- revealing a flattened, cratered wasteland, at which point he says, "We are *very* aware of the toughness of your product"....

[Marechallannes]

Think this story is over 60 years old.:surrender:



This is reality. The new LH 747-800 :thumbsup:

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=51427&d=1341295334

[Blauer Baron]

LH 747-800....And look at all those gun ports!!!

[csadn]

The new LH 747-800

[sigh]

<- really wants to fly on a 747 someday -- never been on an airplane with a staircase

[BobP]

The B-17 copuld take so much damage. I have seen pics with the tail shot off and they still flew.

[Carl_Brisgamer]

Check out this website for numerous photos demonstrating how much damage a B17 can take!

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/contents.htm

[Kugelblitz]

Yeah, the US bombers had the amazing luxury of two pilots, daylight, unescorted and the British made do with the same bomb runs, four engines, a quarter of the defensive armamanent and at night. With one pilot (for the Lancs).
I don't know which group was crazier, but Bomber Command had the highest losses of any British unit, bar none, in WWII.

[wargamer]

Yeah, the US bombers had the amazing luxury of two pilots, daylight, unescorted and the British made do with the same bomb runs, four engines, a quarter of the defensive armamanent and at night. With one pilot (for the Lancs).
I don't know which group was crazier, but Bomber Command had the highest losses of any British unit, bar none, in WWII.

Oh absolutely the USAAC was more certifiable than BC. After all, the Brits had already done the daylight insanity and tried to tell the American's it was a mistake to even try. However, USAAC was convinced the bombers will always get through, didn't need escort, the norden bombsight could land the bombs into a pickle barrel from 20,000 feet. Sorta like MRE's - 3 mistakes in a row. Read about 100th group's mission to Schweinfurt Regensburg.

[csadn]

However, USAAC was convinced the bombers will always get through,

Oh, the bombers always got through -- the question was: Did they do any good once there; and how many of them came back?

I had this sketch a while back of a "proper 'the bomber will always get through'" 4-engine design -- if you can picture the bastard offspring of a DH98, a Tupolev Tu-95 (swept wings were known back then; it's just that no one used them), and a B-17, you're there: Three crew (pilot; copilot/bombardier; radioman/navigator); no defensive armaments at all; swept wings (about 20 degrees, IMSMC); four engines; and streamlined as much as possible. The idea was to be as fast, loaded, as a fighter; and unloaded, faster. You can't shoot what you can't catch.... :)

It's worth pointing out: When the phrase "the bomber will always get through" was first uttered, bombers had just become retractable-gear monoplanes which were faster than the fixed-gear biplane fighters of the day. After a few years, some genius thought to make *fighters* retractable-gear monoplanes....

[Jager]

After a few years, some genius thought to make *fighters* retractable-gear monoplanes....

The philosophy, IIRC, was that fighters needed manuverability, thus the biplane config. Also budgets being what they are, and a military dis-inclination for change,
Karl

[csadn]

The philosophy, IIRC, was that fighters needed manuverability, thus the biplane config.

Against other fighters, perhaps; against fast bombers....


Also budgets being what they are, and a military dis-inclination for change,

God, don't get me started on Hidebound Traditionalism....