Talk:Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress

My favorite plane of all time. Can't wait to see a picture. --Matt Innis (Talk) 21:22, 17 October 2007 (CDT)

Haha, the majic of collaboration! Gotta love it:-) --Matt Innis (Talk) 22:46, 17 October 2007 (CDT)

When do we get to see the B29? --Matt Innis (Talk) 22:50, 17 October 2007 (CDT)

title change?

I just added the B-29 article. I suggest we change the title to B-17 (with "flying fortress" as a link). There is no need for nicknames ion the title of articles, and it can only confuse readers as to the real name.Richard Jensen 23:18, 17 October 2007 (CDT)

I agree. --Matt Innis (Talk) 12:41, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

Movie in picture caption

Is it "Memphis Blues" or "Memphis Belle"? --Robert W King 23:20, 17 October 2007 (CDT)

Good catch. I had simply copied what appears on the flickr photo page. --Joe Quick 16:42, 9 November 2007 (CST)

The "Sally B" is a B-17G best known for its role in the movie "Memphis Belle."

Copying problem

Unfortunately, the first version of this page was copied from elsewhere. As major additions have since been incorporated, I haven't deleted it. Instead I have put the article below - perhaps someone can rewrite the relevant sections? John Stephenson 01:30, 26 October 2007 (CDT)

Article

The B-17, nicknamed "the flying fortress" was the main heavy bomber used by the U.S. Army Air Forces in World War II. Over 12,000 Fortresses were built. They were mainly deployed in Europe, flying from the 8th Air Force in England and the 15th Air Force in the Mediterranean. Their mission was strategic bombing.

In the mid 1930s the Air Corps' requested a large, multi-engine long-range bomber. Boeing built the B-17 (Model 299) prototype, going from design board to flight test in less than 12 months. The B-17 was a low-wing monoplane that combined aerodynamic features of the XB-15 bomber, still in the design stage, and the Model 247 transport.

The first B-17s saw combat in 1941, when the British Royal Air Force took delivery of several B-17s for high-altitude missions. As World War II intensified, the bombers needed additional armament and armor.

The B-17E, the first mass-produced model Flying Fortress, carried nine machine guns and a 4,000-pound bomb load. It was several tons heavier than the prototypes and bristled with armament. It was the first Boeing airplane with the distinctive -- and enormous -- tail for improved control and stability during high-altitude bombing. Each version was more heavily armed. Their only form of defense was to fly in a tight formation and outgun any attacking Luftwaffe fighters by bringing their massive firepower to bear on intruders. The Luftwaffe responded by attacks from above and ahead ("12 O'Clock High!") which gave the defenses only a couple seconds to shoot back. Bombing accuracy was poor because the B-17 usually flew at 15,000 to 20,000 feet to avoid the German flak (anti-aircraft) guns. The solution to poor accuracy was more bombs, and missions of 500 to 800 planes were assembled in British bases, taking about one hour to fly over the target. The vulnerability changed dramatically when the bombers were escorted by P-51 "Mustang" long-range fighters, which could out-perform the German fighter planes. Indeed by 1944 the bombers were bait so the Mustangs could destroy the Luftwaffe fighters. The B-17 was no match against the German jet fighters, but there were far too few of the jets to make a difference.

The Fortresses were also legendary for their ability to stay in the air after taking brutal pounding. They sometimes limped back to their bases with large chunks of the fuselage shot off by flak.

In the Pacific, the planes earned a deadly reputation with the Japanese, who dubbed them "four-engine fighters." The range was too short to reach Japan, so the strategic bombing mission in 1945 went to the much larger B-29.

Boeing plants built a total of 6,981 B-17s in various models, and another 5,745 were built under a nationwide collaborative effort by Douglas and Lockheed (Vega), only a few B-17s survive today.

new text

I replaced the disputed text with a new article written 100% by myself. Richard Jensen 08:32, 26 October 2007 (CDT)

Initially, I blocked Daniel Gonikman for substantial copying here and elsewhere. This has since been overturned, so Daniel is free to contribute to this and other articles. John Stephenson 00:29, 27 October 2007 (CDT)

Not about the B-17

This article appears to be less about the B-17 itself and more about strategic bombing in WWII. After "early history" it drifts off into a discussion of strategic bombing in WWII with occasional mention of the B-17's role. "Results", "Fighter Escorts" and "German Defenses" are about the strategic bombing campaign. "Raids" mentions the B-17, but also drifts around talking about B-24 raids and british raids. "Aiming the Bombs" is generally applicable to any high level bomber of the period.

This article has either drifted badly from its original intent or had the title changed out from over it.

--Michael G Schwern 20:52, 8 November 2007 (CST)

the article is about a weapons system and how it was actually used. Otherwise it's no more important than 10,000 other models of airplanes and would not make an encyclopedia. Richard Jensen 22:14, 8 November 2007 (CST)

I understand that a weapon must be discussed in the context in which it was used, but this article is like writing an article about American infantry tactics in the Vietnam War and entitling it "M-16". An article about a weapon system should cover it's purpose, development, technological details, shortcomings, operational history, variants, military impact, cultural impact, future influences and famous uses, to name a few. A weapon as iconic and influential as the B-17 deserves more than a few mentions in an overview of strategic bombing.

I am not an expert on the B-17 so I can only comment on the impression I get from reading the article.

The campaigns in which the B-17 was involved should frame it's story, not the other way around. For example, one can begin with the military thinking at the time of the proposal which lead to the B-17 and how that influenced it's design. How the availability of the B-17, and expectations of how it would perform, influenced pre-war planning How actual combat experience influenced future variants and tactics employed by the B-17. Where did it succeed and where did it fail? And always the focus should be on the B-17, avoiding drifting off into detail about related topics. For example, the "Raids" section starts out talking about B-17 raids but then drifts into the B-24. Such details should go into separate articles.

--Michael G Schwern 18:47, 13 November 2007 (CST)

the article is about a weapons system as used in an actual war; it is not about machinery. it becomes a story of machinery--which we do not want--unless it is embedded in a complex narrative about strategic bombing. There is a sentence on B-24's at Ploesti because the outcome affected the stragic uses of the B-17. Richard Jensen 19:11, 13 November 2007 (CST)

If we start updating this article, my observation would definitely be that weapons systems are closer to machinery than they are to doctrines. Indeed, there is quite a bit to be written about the machine, to say nothing about variants such as the XB-40 and the Weary Willie.

A complex narrative about WWII ETO strategic bombing policy, not containing weapons system details, is also in order. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Awesome

Okay, now that you put them side by side, the B-52 is my favorite ;-) D. Matt Innis 22:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but have you looked at the B-58, B-70, B-1, and B-2? Or, perhaps, the B-36, which probably takes the ugly but impressive award? Howard C. Berkowitz 02:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)