A Conversation for B-17 Flying Fortress

In the RAF

Post 1


Wasn't the Flying Fortress turned down by Bomber Command on the grounds that too much of its freightage was taken up with un-necessary defensive weapons, and that the bomb load was even at its best less than two-third that which a Lancaster or a Halifax could drop on Germany? (ie, it would not be the best use of crew - too many men per aircraft, compared to an equivalent RAF bomber; too much space wasted on weaponry; not enough space devoted to the essential purpose of the job, which was carrying bombs to drop over Germany and reduce its cities to rubble)

The Forts were taken up by Coastal Command and the Fleet Air Arm for anti-submarine work, mine-laying and attacks on German coastal shipping, where the plethora of extra machine-guns was an aggressive asset for spoiling a U-boat captain's day, and it could still carry a worthwhile weight in depth-charges or mines.

In the RAF

Post 2


someone here knows their planes and their history. congratulations on the research job. by the way, my future father-in-law, a tailgunner, crashed in a B-17 and lived to tell it. Another time the pilot walked back through the plane and calmly shot every man he came upon until the MP's killed him. Exciting times, eh?

Key: Complain about this post

In the RAF

Write an Entry

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."

Write an entry
Read more