In reply to Cinco Ranch Aggie
Let's see how they play it in the series before we get too upset. There were shuttle raids by 8th AF units into Italy and then back to England on the next raid. Maybe that is what they are trying to depict.
10:22a, 12/15/23
In reply to BQ78
I hope I'm not conveying that I'm upset about this. Far from it, actually. Life-long nut about WWII, aviation in particular, so I'm just ecstatic that we're getting such a series even if it portrays events incorrectly.BQ78 said:
Let's see how they play it in the series before we get too upset. There were shuttle raids by 8th AF units into Italy and then back to England on the next raid. Maybe that is what they are trying to depict.
#FJB
10:22a, 12/15/23
In reply to Ghost of Andrew Eaton
Fair point about BoB, and The Pacific as well.Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
I don't disagree with you but maybe this gets some people to actually start reading a book on the TA or the rest of the air war in WW2.
I'd say the original BoB does exactly what you complain about the TA.
#FJB
10:46p, 1/21/24
I just ran into this video of an interview of the author of the book Masters of the Air and the guy who worked with him to turn the book into the series:
11:29p, 1/28/24
Watched the first episode and I have a few questions:
Why were the ground guys telling them all to shut up and get to interrogation after they landed? It was almost like they didn't want them talking about their experience in front of the ground crews?
And does anyone understand the strategy of flying the lead bombers at higher altitudes than the trailing groups? Was that "just the way it was" or was there some key reason that they staggered the planes that way, highest to lowest?
Why were the ground guys telling them all to shut up and get to interrogation after they landed? It was almost like they didn't want them talking about their experience in front of the ground crews?
And does anyone understand the strategy of flying the lead bombers at higher altitudes than the trailing groups? Was that "just the way it was" or was there some key reason that they staggered the planes that way, highest to lowest?
8:33a, 1/29/24
In reply to Stive
Stive said:
Watched the first episode and I have a few questions:
Why were the ground guys telling them all to shut up and get to interrogation after they landed? It was almost like they didn't want them talking about their experience in front of the ground crews?
And does anyone understand the strategy of flying the lead bombers at higher altitudes than the trailing groups? Was that "just the way it was" or was there some key reason that they staggered the planes that way, highest to lowest?
9:19a, 1/29/24
In reply to Stive
My thoughts on the interrogation was the stories get blended when shared. Also, the ground guys could possibly be spies? (seemed like a lot of Brits were hanging around the airfield too).
TOTAL GUESSES THOUGH
Stive said:
Watched the first episode and I have a few questions:
Why were the ground guys telling them all to shut up and get to interrogation after they landed? It was almost like they didn't want them talking about their experience in front of the ground crews?
And does anyone understand the strategy of flying the lead bombers at higher altitudes than the trailing groups? Was that "just the way it was" or was there some key reason that they staggered the planes that way, highest to lowest?
My thoughts on the interrogation was the stories get blended when shared. Also, the ground guys could possibly be spies? (seemed like a lot of Brits were hanging around the airfield too).
TOTAL GUESSES THOUGH
9:25a, 1/29/24
The crews were not supposed to openly talk about the mission experience till after meeting with the intellegence officers and being debriefed because as mentioned above stories can get blended when shared.
10:17a, 1/29/24
In reply to ja86
Lots of examples of this including bombers being described as destroyed or crews bailing out when in fact those aircraft returned and landed. The post war cross referencing of German records with US flight crew claims shows some pretty big holes.
This is the answer, keeping stories straight was thought to be important in crediting gunners with shootdowns. A single gunners claim of shooting down an aircraft had to be backed up by other gunners on aircraft in the formation. Ultimately looking back there was a lot of variation in what was described and descriptions of specific incidents were poorly remembered. Your brain does a lot of things when adrenaline is pumping through you but recording specific details isn't one of them.ja86 said:
The crews were not supposed to openly talk about the mission experience till after meeting with the intellegence officers and being debriefed because as mentioned above stories can get blended when shared.
Lots of examples of this including bombers being described as destroyed or crews bailing out when in fact those aircraft returned and landed. The post war cross referencing of German records with US flight crew claims shows some pretty big holes.
11:56a, 1/29/24
For what its worth in regards to the Tuskegee Airmen in this series, both sets of pilots ended up in the same POW camps when shot down. Germans didn't separate them based on race. That is probably how they are going to have them interact in this series.
12:40p, 1/29/24
In reply to wangus12
Sgt. Kinchloe
Well everyone knows that......Primary Source proof!!wangus12 said:
For what its worth in regards to the Tuskegee Airmen in this series, both sets of pilots ended up in the same POW camps when shot down. Germans didn't separate them based on race. That is probably how they are going to have them interact in this series.
Sgt. Kinchloe
7:30p, 1/31/24
Been listening to a couple podcasts about this series. John Orloff and Donald Miller both think that the producers did a good job being historically accurate.
7:42p, 1/31/24
Brazenly stolen from the Military forum.
https://www.twz.com/air/this-is-what-it-took-to-defend-a-b-17-bomber
https://www.twz.com/air/this-is-what-it-took-to-defend-a-b-17-bomber
7:43p, 2/1/24
Just watched the first episode …. Dear God.
The waking up, meals and briefings for the mission were way to similar to preparing to leaving the wire in Afghanistan All they had to say different was "Contact"..
The waking up, meals and briefings for the mission were way to similar to preparing to leaving the wire in Afghanistan All they had to say different was "Contact"..
8:19p, 2/1/24
In reply to Rabid Cougar
Looking forward to episode 3 tomorrow
Just wait, episode 2 gets better, so hold onRabid Cougar said:
Just watched the first episode …. Dear God.
The waking up, meals and briefings for the mission were way to similar to preparing to leaving the wire in Afghanistan All they had to say different was "Contact"..
Looking forward to episode 3 tomorrow
11:42a, 2/3/24
Curtis R. Biddick
Curtis Rundle Biddick was born in Livingston, Wisconsin, on April 20, 1915, the son of Ernest and Delphis Biddick. He attended the University of California, Davis from 1932 until 1937, where he majored in Animal Science. In 1940 Biddick was working as a buyer in the wholesale meat industry in San Francisco. In January 1942 he enlisted as an Aviation Cadet in the United States Army Air Corps, graduating as a pilot in September of that year. He was assigned to the 100th Bomb Group in Wendover Field and departed the US with the 100th in the spring of 1943.
On July 24, 1943, Biddick piloted B-17 42-30184, nicknamed "Muggs'", on a twelve-hour mission to Trondjheim, the first Eighth Air Force attack on a Norwegian target. On his return, Biddick crash-landed in the vegetable patch of an RAF commanding officer in Aberdeen. The crew were returned to Thorpe Abbotts the following day.
On August 17, 1943, Biddick's B-17 42-5860 "Escape Kit'" took part in a mission to Regensburg. The 100th Bomb Group was assigned to "coffin corner", so called for its vulnerable position at the rear of the formation. Approximately 40 miles north of Regensburg, Biddick's plane suffered an oxygen fire caused by 20mm damage to the nose and fuselage, trapping those on the flight deck. Four of the crew were killed in action, including Lt Biddick.
Curtis Rundle Biddick was born in Livingston, Wisconsin, on April 20, 1915, the son of Ernest and Delphis Biddick. He attended the University of California, Davis from 1932 until 1937, where he majored in Animal Science. In 1940 Biddick was working as a buyer in the wholesale meat industry in San Francisco. In January 1942 he enlisted as an Aviation Cadet in the United States Army Air Corps, graduating as a pilot in September of that year. He was assigned to the 100th Bomb Group in Wendover Field and departed the US with the 100th in the spring of 1943.
On July 24, 1943, Biddick piloted B-17 42-30184, nicknamed "Muggs'", on a twelve-hour mission to Trondjheim, the first Eighth Air Force attack on a Norwegian target. On his return, Biddick crash-landed in the vegetable patch of an RAF commanding officer in Aberdeen. The crew were returned to Thorpe Abbotts the following day.
On August 17, 1943, Biddick's B-17 42-5860 "Escape Kit'" took part in a mission to Regensburg. The 100th Bomb Group was assigned to "coffin corner", so called for its vulnerable position at the rear of the formation. Approximately 40 miles north of Regensburg, Biddick's plane suffered an oxygen fire caused by 20mm damage to the nose and fuselage, trapping those on the flight deck. Four of the crew were killed in action, including Lt Biddick.
9:13a, 2/5/24
Gale Cleven's military career mirrored that of his best buddy John Egan; beginning at Randolph Field Texas in March 1940 where he signed up as a Flying Cadet, and where he also picked up the nickname 'Bucky'.
In Episode 1 Gale is seen with his girlfriend Marjorie, who was a student at Texas Tech. They were married after the war and she died in 1953 of Polio. She is buried in Shannon Rose Hill Memorial Park, Fort Worth.
In Episode 1 Gale is seen with his girlfriend Marjorie, who was a student at Texas Tech. They were married after the war and she died in 1953 of Polio. She is buried in Shannon Rose Hill Memorial Park, Fort Worth.
9:52a, 2/5/24
I posed this question on the Entertainment board thread for MOTA:
One possible answer was England was where the -17s tended to operate from, and that's where our media folks were (as opposed to Italy or North Africa where -24s operated from). On the latter, is that the case that the -24 didn't fly out of England bases? I'm a life-long fanatic on WWII aviation, so this is probably something that I should know.Quote:
I find it interesting how the marketing (not sure if that is the right term, maybe propaganda?) of the time was so focused on certain aircraft, the B-17 being one (P-51 is the other I'm thinking of). I wonder why the Flying Fortress was the "pretty girl" of WWII US bombers when more B-24s were produced and the Liberator had arguably better "statistics" (range, altitude, bomb load, etc). Was it simply because the FF came first? Or was it because the B-17 was a stylistically better looking aircraft than the Liberator, which might be described as a box with wings due to the fuselage shape?
#FJB
10:33a, 2/5/24
In reply to Cinco Ranch Aggie
Flying Fortress is a much better name than Liberator, IMO. And then you have pictures of the B17 post-bombing runs just shot full of holes and still flying then the average person will be in awe of such a plane, again IMOCinco Ranch Aggie said:
I posed this question on the Entertainment board thread for MOTA:One possible answer was England was where the -17s tended to operate from, and that's where our media folks were (as opposed to Italy or North Africa where -24s operated from). On the latter, is that the case that the -24 didn't fly out of England bases? I'm a life-long fanatic on WWII aviation, so this is probably something that I should know.Quote:
I find it interesting how the marketing (not sure if that is the right term, maybe propaganda?) of the time was so focused on certain aircraft, the B-17 being one (P-51 is the other I'm thinking of). I wonder why the Flying Fortress was the "pretty girl" of WWII US bombers when more B-24s were produced and the Liberator had arguably better "statistics" (range, altitude, bomb load, etc). Was it simply because the FF came first? Or was it because the B-17 was a stylistically better looking aircraft than the Liberator, which might be described as a box with wings due to the fuselage shape?
11:13a, 2/5/24
In reply to Cinco Ranch Aggie
PR. The B-17 looks sexy. The B-24 not so much. I watch a ton of old newsreels and the B-17 is featured way more prominently .
Cinco Ranch Aggie said:
I posed this question on the Entertainment board thread for MOTA:One possible answer was England was where the -17s tended to operate from, and that's where our media folks were (as opposed to Italy or North Africa where -24s operated from). On the latter, is that the case that the -24 didn't fly out of England bases? I'm a life-long fanatic on WWII aviation, so this is probably something that I should know.Quote:
I find it interesting how the marketing (not sure if that is the right term, maybe propaganda?) of the time was so focused on certain aircraft, the B-17 being one (P-51 is the other I'm thinking of). I wonder why the Flying Fortress was the "pretty girl" of WWII US bombers when more B-24s were produced and the Liberator had arguably better "statistics" (range, altitude, bomb load, etc). Was it simply because the FF came first? Or was it because the B-17 was a stylistically better looking aircraft than the Liberator, which might be described as a box with wings due to the fuselage shape?
PR. The B-17 looks sexy. The B-24 not so much. I watch a ton of old newsreels and the B-17 is featured way more prominently .
12:28p, 2/5/24
In reply to Cinco Ranch Aggie
So in the early 40's the B-24 was known to kill pilots where as the B-17 was known to be more reliable. Thus the B-17 went to England to start bombing early in the war and because the 8th Air Force was set up and experienced flying them they stayed.
There were also issues with production at the Ford plant. Turns out tolerances that were fine for automobiles of the day were deadly on aircraft. Later in the war the kinks were worked out of the B-24 and they began being used wider. Primarily utilized flying out of Africa the majority of the bombers that flew the famous Ploesti raids were B-24s. The B-24 also did a lot of work in the South Pacific flying the long distances needed for missions there. As was mentioned these were largely out of the eye of reporters and didn't get the coverage.
The B-24 was a newer design and utilized hydraulic pressure for flight surfaces and wasn't flying by cables directly connected to the pilots pedals and yoke like the B-17. This was new technology and took time to get right. A hydraulic pressure leak that couldn't be isolated could result in an aircraft that wasn't flyable.Cinco Ranch Aggie said:
I posed this question on the Entertainment board thread for MOTA:One possible answer was England was where the -17s tended to operate from, and that's where our media folks were (as opposed to Italy or North Africa where -24s operated from). On the latter, is that the case that the -24 didn't fly out of England bases? I'm a life-long fanatic on WWII aviation, so this is probably something that I should know.Quote:
I find it interesting how the marketing (not sure if that is the right term, maybe propaganda?) of the time was so focused on certain aircraft, the B-17 being one (P-51 is the other I'm thinking of). I wonder why the Flying Fortress was the "pretty girl" of WWII US bombers when more B-24s were produced and the Liberator had arguably better "statistics" (range, altitude, bomb load, etc). Was it simply because the FF came first? Or was it because the B-17 was a stylistically better looking aircraft than the Liberator, which might be described as a box with wings due to the fuselage shape?
So in the early 40's the B-24 was known to kill pilots where as the B-17 was known to be more reliable. Thus the B-17 went to England to start bombing early in the war and because the 8th Air Force was set up and experienced flying them they stayed.
There were also issues with production at the Ford plant. Turns out tolerances that were fine for automobiles of the day were deadly on aircraft. Later in the war the kinks were worked out of the B-24 and they began being used wider. Primarily utilized flying out of Africa the majority of the bombers that flew the famous Ploesti raids were B-24s. The B-24 also did a lot of work in the South Pacific flying the long distances needed for missions there. As was mentioned these were largely out of the eye of reporters and didn't get the coverage.
12:47p, 2/5/24
My understanding is that there were B-24 bomb groups stationed in England, and their bases were farther out from the London area (because the B-24 had a greater range than the B-17). The war correspondents (based in London) mostly visited the nearby B-17 bases, and accordingly that aircraft got most of the publicity. (Or so I have heard).
By 1944 B-24 bomb groups were also flying out of Italy (my uncle's squadron was in Foggia)
By 1944 B-24 bomb groups were also flying out of Italy (my uncle's squadron was in Foggia)
12:50p, 2/5/24
Texas Aggie Medal of Honor recipient Lloyd Hughes flew the B 24
Lloyd Herbert Hughes Jr., better known to his friends, as "Pete," flew his fifth mission, as pilot of a B-24D Liberator bomber in an attack against the Axis oil refineries in Ploesti, Romania. He was killed August 1, 1943 when his plane was severely damaged by enemy ground fire prior to his reaching his target just north of Ploesti at Campina, Romania.
Lloyd Herbert Hughes Jr., better known to his friends, as "Pete," flew his fifth mission, as pilot of a B-24D Liberator bomber in an attack against the Axis oil refineries in Ploesti, Romania. He was killed August 1, 1943 when his plane was severely damaged by enemy ground fire prior to his reaching his target just north of Ploesti at Campina, Romania.
2:18p, 2/5/24
In reply to BrazosBendHorn
Yes there were many.
Just as an example, Jimmy Stewart was a B-24 pilot flying from England.
Quote:
My understanding is that there were B-24 bomb groups stationed in England
Yes there were many.
Just as an example, Jimmy Stewart was a B-24 pilot flying from England.
5:13p, 2/5/24
One thing they got right was with the pilots and aircrew being portrayed by actors who look the part, age-wise ..
My uncle was flying a B-24 when he was barely 23 ...
My uncle was flying a B-24 when he was barely 23 ...
6:58p, 2/5/24
In reply to Cinco Ranch Aggie
https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/boeing-b-17-flying-fortress-vs-the-consolidated-b-24-liberator/
Maybe a bit more detailed than you were wanting but a good in depth analysis of the two bombersCinco Ranch Aggie said:
I posed this question on the Entertainment board thread for MOTA:One possible answer was England was where the -17s tended to operate from, and that's where our media folks were (as opposed to Italy or North Africa where -24s operated from). On the latter, is that the case that the -24 didn't fly out of England bases? I'm a life-long fanatic on WWII aviation, so this is probably something that I should know.Quote:
I find it interesting how the marketing (not sure if that is the right term, maybe propaganda?) of the time was so focused on certain aircraft, the B-17 being one (P-51 is the other I'm thinking of). I wonder why the Flying Fortress was the "pretty girl" of WWII US bombers when more B-24s were produced and the Liberator had arguably better "statistics" (range, altitude, bomb load, etc). Was it simply because the FF came first? Or was it because the B-17 was a stylistically better looking aircraft than the Liberator, which might be described as a box with wings due to the fuselage shape?
https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/boeing-b-17-flying-fortress-vs-the-consolidated-b-24-liberator/
10:26a, 2/9/24
Episode 4; less combat and more character development.
Always have to ruin a good war movie with a love story
Always have to ruin a good war movie with a love story